HBC/3/1P

THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT

(MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE)

PLANNING POLICY

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF

John Brooks

www.gvagrimley.co.uk

Skeleton Proof of Evidence Contents

January 2009

This proof of evidence relates to the implications of the following applications and

proposed orders:

1. Planning Application for

full planning permission

for works lying within

Runcorn comprising

improvements to the

Central Expressway,

Weston Link, the Weston

Point Expressway and

Junction 12 of the M56

motorway, dated 31

March 2008

2. Planning Application for

full planning permission

for works lying within

Widnes comprising

modifications of the

northern approaches to

the Silver Jubilee Bridge,

dated 31 March 2008

3. Listed Building Consent

Application for

modifications to the

carriageway of the Silver

Jubilee Bridge, dated 31

March 2008

4. The River Mersey (Mersey

Gateway Bridge) Order

(application under section

6 of the Transport and

Appeal reference:

APP/D0650/V/08/1203385/2095113

APP/D0650/V/1203384/2095069

APP/D0650/V/08/1203386/2095114

TWA/08/APP/05

Appeal

ref:

Skeleton Proof of Evidence Contents

January 2009

Works Act 1992 to the

Secretary of State for

Transport for an order

under section 3(1)(b) of

that Act)

5. The A533 (Silver Jubilee

Bridge) Road User

Charging Scheme Order

2008

6. The Halton Borough

Council (Mersey Gateway

- Queensway) Compulsory

Purchase Order 2008

7. The Halton Borough

Council (Mersey Gateway

- Central Expressway)

Compulsory Purchase

Order 2008

8. The Halton Borough

Council (A533 Central

Expressway) Side Roads

Order 2008

9. The Halton Borough

Council (A533

Queensway) Side Roads

Order 2008

Skeleton Proof of Evidence Contents

January 2009

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1

2. BACKGROUND DETAIL.......................................................................5

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................23

4. PLANNING POLICY ..........................................................................29

5. PLANNING APPRAISAL EXERCISE ...................................................60

6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPORT FOR THE MERSEY GATEWAY

PROJECT..........................................................................................62

7. PLANNING BENEFITS ......................................................................80

8. OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES............................................90

9. ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECRETARY OF STATE ISSUES RAISED .....116

10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 137

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is John Michael Brooks. I am a chartered Town Planner with a

Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Town and Country Planning and I am a

member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

1.2 I am a Director in the Planning, Development and Regeneration (PDR)

team of GVA Grimley Limited, based in the firms Manchester office. GVA

is a national leading multi disciplinary property consultancy, with UK

offices in Birmingham, London, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin,

Newcastle and Cardiff, as well as an extensive network of international

affiliated offices.

1.3 The national GVA Grimley PDR team has over 150 chartered professionals

with a presence in London and each of the regions. The Manchester team

numbers over 30 professionals and is one of the largest in the north west.

As a team we act on behalf of a wide variety of clients ranging from public

sector organisations through to large private developers and major public

limited companies. We are experienced in the field of planning and

regeneration consultancy, undertaking a wide range of tasks including

development appraisals, development plan representations, development

planning, applications, appeals, involvement with RSS and LDF’s,

masterplanning, environmental assessments, economic strategies, urban

regeneration and compulsory purchase.

1.4 I have over 19 years post qualification experience, initially within the

public sector but primarily within private consultancy. Over the course of

my career I have acted on behalf of a wide range of clients in relation to

retail, residential, commercial, leisure and infrastructure projects.

Alongside a general practice role my particular expertise has been in

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 2

respect of promoting major development proposals through the statutory

planning and policy process. I have acted on behalf of clients within

planning inquiries, in respect of CPO proceedings, and have appeared at

RSS Examination in Public and at LDF/AAP proceedings. I have also given

evidence in respect of land compensation matters.

Involvement in the Mersey Gateway Project

1.5 My involvement with the Mersey Gateway Project (the Project) dates from

November 2007 when GVA Grimley were retained by Halton Council to

provide planning, regeneration, development and CPO advice to the

project team. My particular role within this wider GVA instruction was in

respect of the planning elements of the brief, in particular the preparation

of the planning related documentation which supported the planning and

listed building applications and which informed the submission under the

Transport and Works Act. This specifically included:

1. Preparation of the Planning Policy chapter and input into the Land

Use chapter of the Environmental Statement, setting out the full

planning policy framework, assessing the proposal again that

framework and concluding on impact both pre and post mitigation.

2. Preparation of the Planning Statement which, alongside setting out

the background detail to the Project, undertook an appraisal of the

Project against the development plan policy framework, conducted a

planning balance exercise and concluded on the appropriateness of a

grant of planning permission.

3. Preparation of the Statement of Community Involvement, which

drew together the detail of consultation undertaken with landowners,

stakeholders, statutory undertakers, third parties and the general

public over the period 2002- 2008.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 3

4. Fulfilling the planning agent role for the two planning applications and

the listed building submission, co-ordinating the overall submission and

liaising between the wider project team and Halton Council.

1.6 The Planning Statement and the Environmental Statement formed part of

the planning and listed building application submissions for both the

remote highway works and the submission under the Transport and Works

Act (i.e. the overall Project).

1.7 Given this background I am familiar with both the detail of the Project

proposals and the overall planning and wider legislative approach that has

been adopted.

Scope of Evidence

1.8 My evidence focuses on the planning related elements of the Project under

consideration, namely an appraisal of the scheme against the policy

framework and a conclusion on planning balance.

1.9 To inform this exercise my evidence undertakes the following:

1. It sets out the development plan policy framework and examines the

extent to which the proposal is supported by the provisions of the

development plan.

2. It examines whether the proposal is in conflict with any part of the

development plan and makes an assessment of harm arising from any

such conflict, cross referring to the wider body of technical evidence

submitted in support of the Project as appropriate.

3. It sets out the material benefits arising from the proposal and which

are to be weighed in any assessment process.

1.10 On this basis my evidence sets out my conclusions on the planning

balance, within which I assess compliance against harm before going on to

assess benefits. This assessment framework allows for my evidence to

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 4

reach a conclusion in respect of planning suitability and the

appropriateness of a grant of planning permission. I also draw from my

evidence and that of others to conclude firstly on each of the issues raised

by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the

correspondence from GONW of 30th September 2008 and secondly on

those particular matters identified by the Secretary of State for Transport

(in correspondence from the Department of Transport dated 20 February

20098) which relate to issues of planning policy.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 5

2. BACKGROUND DETAIL

2.1 Halton Council is promoting a new road crossing of the River Mersey

between Runcorn and Widnes along with associated works which will allow

for the new crossing to be incorporated into the existing principal road

network. The primary aim of the Project works, as set out within policy

S14 of the UDP, is to relieve capacity constraints on the existing Silver

Jubilee Bridge (SJB) as part of an integrated transport system for Halton

and the wider regional transport network. Halton Council have

subsequently defined seven objectives for the Project as follows:

1. To relieve the congested SJB, thereby removing the constraint on local

and regional development and better provide for local transport needs;

2. To apply minimum toll and road user charges to both the Mersey

Gateway Bridge and the Silver Jubilee Bridge consistent with the level

required to satisfy the affordability constraints;

3. To improve accessibility in order to maximise local development and

regional economic growth opportunities;

4. To improve local air quality and enhance the general urban

environment;

5. To improve public transport links across the River Mersey;

6. To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking; and

7. To restore effective network resilience for transport across the River

Mersey.

Each would build on the primary UDP aim and ensure the delivery of wide

ranging benefit to both the town and sub-region.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 6

2.2 The following section of my evidence sets out the background detail and

context to the Project and its evolution from inception through to the

current position.

1. Halton Borough context

2.3 The Project works lie wholly within the Borough of Halton within north

west England. The Borough is broadly split in two by the Mersey Estuary,

with the main towns of Widnes lying to north of the river and Runcorn to

the south. As a whole the Borough has a population in the order of

134,000, with 55,000 in Widnes, 59,000 in Runcorn and the balance in the

rural parishes.

2.4 Runcorn is the older of the two settlements; its modern growth can be

traced to the opening of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776, when improved

transportation provided the economic stimulus for industrial development

and maritime trade. Its subsequent growth was assisted by its location at

the terminus of five canals (St Helens Canal, Sankey Navigation, the

Bridgewater Canal, the Weaver Navigation, the Runcorn to Latchford Canal

and the Manchester Ship Canal), and the development of the chemical

industry based on the ready supply of water and transport. Other

industries developed, including soap manufacture and shipbuilding. Over

the course of the 20th century this growth continued, boosted by its

designation as a new town in 1964 and its subsequent accelerated growth

to its current population.

2.5 The new town designation defines much of Runcorn’s present day

character. It resulted in significant development on the land to the south

and east of the old town, mainly taking the form of patterned clusters of

higher density residential districts. These are set within a network of

expressways and bus lanes, which segregate the main traffic flows and

provide links between the individual neighbourhoods. The commercial

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 7

centre takes the form of Halton Lea, a purpose built shopping and

municipal centre.

2.6 Widnes is a more recent settlement with its growth linked directly to the

rapid industrial development associated with the chemical industry over

the course of the 19th century. The most notable negative effect of the

rapid industrialisation of the area was the large amount of waste

produced, particularly by the chemical industry. The town expanded from

its core of high density terraced housing surrounding a compact town

centre, absorbing the surrounding villages and growing to a current

population of 55,000.

2.7 Both settlements betray this industrial legacy and support a significant

chemical, manufacturing and heavy industry sector. The majority of this

is located close to the Mersey Estuary on both the northern and southern

sides.

2.8 The Social Impact Assessment undertaken as part of the Environmental

Assessment and the subsequent work undertaken as part of the Health

Impact Assessment and in the evidence of particularly Dr Twigger-Ross

and Mr Russell together summarise the current social and economic

context of Halton Borough and the wider sub region, and the detailed

performance of the Borough against key social and deprivation indices.

2.9 In overall terms the evidence demonstrates that Halton suffers significant

levels of deprivation, with an overall ranking of 39th out of 354 Boroughs

in England in 2007 on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, where 1st is the

most deprived. This average IMD ranking represents an improvement

from the 2004 ranking of 21st most deprived and reflects some local

regeneration derived benefits. The improvement is modest however and

as the evidence of Mr Graham Russell HBC/9/1P and Dr Clare Twigger-

Ross HBC/10/1P shows the indices identify areas of real concern in both

economic and social terms with regards to economic matters. The key

economic based findings show:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 8

1. Employment rates and job densities (ratio of total jobs to working

age population) in Halton are lower than both the north west and the

UK as a whole;

2. A lower proportion of employment in higher order occupations, with a

rate of 33.0% of all employees, compared to 40% for the region and

42.9% nationally;

3. Higher levels of persons obtaining no educational or vocational

qualifications;

4. Claimant count rates above both regional and national averages.

2.10 With regards to social and health criteria the evidence of Dr Twigger-Ross

and particularly the findings of the Community Profile exercise included at

Annex B of the Health Impact Assessment identify a generally poor

performance against key indicators, showing:

1. Higher levels of long term health problems ahead of national and

regional averages;

2. Higher mortality rates with significantly reduced life expectancy for

both males and females alike compared to national and regional

averages;

3. Lower levels of car ownership, lower rates of house ownership,

poorer housing standards all when compared regionally and

nationally.

2.11 The majority of the worst performing wards in terms of both economic and

social and health criteria are located close the SJB and the general

alignment of the Project works.

2. Physical Character

2.12 The landscape character of the two settlements within Halton is markedly

different; Widnes is a low lying town occupying a broad tract of land which

slopes gently from the north towards the Mersey. Runcorn however

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 9

occupies higher ground with the north facing slopes of the margins of the

Mersey rising steeply to form a ridge which runs parallel with the Estuary

culminating in a series of natural sandstone outcrops, the most prominent

of which is occupied by Halton Castle.

2.13 The two towns lie either side of a natural narrowing of the Mersey Estuary

known as The Runcorn Gap. This feature forms the historical focus of both

towns with Widnes West Bank on the north shore and Runcorn Old Town

on the south side of the River . The Runcorn Gap is a long standing

strategic crossing point of the Mersey with records suggesting that it has

fulfilled such a role since Roman times when crossing by boat and on foot

at low tide would have been undertaken. There is clear documentary

evidence of use from the Medieval period onwards, when the scale of

movement of goods and people necessitated the establishment of a ferry,

with earliest records dating from 1190. The Runcorn Gap was first

permanently bridged in 1868 by the Aethelfleda Railway Bridge, a Grade

2* listed structure that remains in use today, carrying mainline railway

services between Chester and Liverpool and the wider railway network. In

1905 the first road crossing, a structure known as the Transporter Bridge,

was opened which in turn was replaced in 1961 by the current Silver

Jubilee road bridge, itself now a Grade 2 listed building.

2.14 The Runcorn Gap marks the broad division between the Middle and Upper

Estuary. Although ecological designations under European Directives have

been made downstream, the Upper Estuary enjoys no designation. The

New Bridge will span the Upper Estuary some 1.8 km east of the Silver

Jubilee Bridge.

3. Silver Jubilee Bridge

2.15 The SJB today represents a key vehicular crossing point over the Mersey.

It is one of only four main opportunities for road traffic to cross the

Mersey between Liverpool and Manchester. From west to east these

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 10

comprise the two Mersey tunnels, the SJB, the crossings within Warrington

town centre and the Thelwall Viaduct on the M6. As such the SJB forms a

key link in the regional transport network as well as representing the only

vehicular and pedestrian link between the Borough towns of Runcorn and

Widnes.

2.16 The SJB was originally opened in 1961 with one lane in each direction and

an opening year traffic flow of 10,000 vehicles per day. The bridge was

modified in 1977 to provide for two lanes in each direction. However,

these are considered as sub standard (having a total width of just 12.2 m)

and lack any central divide or compliance with current day spacing. As is

set out in the evidence of Mr Pauling HBC/8/1P, traffic volume on the

bridge has since grown but there is no physical scope to provide for

additional capacity. The traffic and flow information provided by Alan

Pauling suggests that the SJB today typically carries in excess of 80,000

vehicles per day and at peak times flows are greater. A figure of 91,000

vehicles per day was recorded in 2007. Practical capacity is exceeded for

4 hours each day and spreading of the morning and evening peak

regularly occurs. The bridge has poor facilities for pedestrians, which are

rarely used, and no discrete provision for cyclists. Prolonged periods of

congestion regularly occur, which affect both regional and local traffic

crossing the river as well as causing knock on network effects for local

traffic in both Widnes and Runcorn. In addition the public transport routes

that do use the bridge for inter town journeys cannot rely on either

providing consistent journey times or maintaining timetable targets.

2.17 Silver Jubilee Bridge fulfils a pivotal role within the regional highway

network. The main elements of the regional highway network comprise

the M62 (linking Merseyside to Manchester and beyond) which runs along

the north of the Borough and the M56 (linking North Wales with

Manchester) which skirts along the southern Borough boundary. The only

link between the two is the route provided by SJB, which provides for the

north south regional movement in and out of Liverpool from Runcorn, Vale

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 11

Royal, Chester and North Wales. The wider highway network has sought

to recognise this key function, with the expressway network in Runcorn

providing fast links from junctions 11 and 12 of the M56 via SJB to

junction 7 of the M62 via the Widnes Eastern bypass. The transport

assessment undertaken as part of the Project however has found that the

main limit to capacity within this network is the constraint provided by SJB

rather than by aims of the remote the accompanying junction links and

highway network.

2.18 Whilst the wider regional network is reasonably robust therefore, the

bottleneck provided by SJB undermines network resilience; whilst the

regular congestion associated with normal use presents a daily constraint,

the effects of any incident (accident, breakdown, weather related

maintenance, etc) on either SJB or its approaches directly undermines the

role of the bridge as a key link in the wider network.

4. Mersey Gateway Project

2.19 The detailed history of the Project and the key stages of its evolution is set

out primarily within the evidence of Mr Steven Nicholson HBC/2/1P. A

summary for the purposes of providing a context to my evidence is set out

below.

2.20 The provision of a second road crossing of the river Mersey has been a

long held aspiration of both Halton Council and its predecessor highway

authority, Cheshire County Council who identified the traffic bottleneck

caused by SJB as a long acknowledged social and economic constraint.

The Department of Transport undertook the Mersey Crossing Study in

1991 to review the need and preferred location for a second crossing.

This led to the establishment of the Mersey Crossing Group which in 1997

considered a series of options leading through to further assessment in

1999. It was at this time that the initial draft of the UDP identified that

the case for a new crossing had been acknowledged by the then Minister

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 12

for Transport, making clear the need to develop a scheme for inclusion in

the Local Transport Plan.

2.21 Halton Council subsequently began to advance the proposals. The work

undertaken by and on behalf of the Council between 2000 and 2003

focused on comparing potential alternatives to address problems

associated with congestion in Halton. This work was submitted first to the

DfT in 2003 and then resubmitted, accompanied by additional data in

early in 2004. Through this process, certain regional and local objectives

were identified as follows:

1. To relieve the SJB, thereby removing the constraint on local and

regional development and better provide for local traffic;

2. To maximise development opportunities;

3. To improve public transport links across the River; and

4. To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking.

2.22 Halton Council required any scheme proposal to fulfil as many of the

above objectives as possible, to fit its environment and to be economically

viable. Throughout the process a range of alternatives were considered.

Those alternatives which satisfied the above objectives, fitted their

environment and were economically viable were then considered further

until a preferred solution was identified.

2.23 A number of crossing alternatives with the potential to solve congestion

problems in Halton and potentially achieve the Councils objectives as set

out above were considered through this stage of the Project. These

included making better use of existing infrastructure and options for

increasing transport capacity. The main areas of investigation were as

follows:

1. Halton Travel Plans and similar demand management initiatives;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 13

2. Road user charging for using the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge or

Other Roads;

3. Dynamic Lane Management to get the best out of the existing road

capacity;

4. Selective Access to SJB by Vehicle Tagging;

5. Road Space Reallocation;

6. Park and Ride Facilities

7. Rail Service Improvement

8. New road bridge crossing to the West of the Railway Bridge

9. New road bridge crossing between the SJB and the railway bridge

10. New road tunnels to the west and east of the SJB

11. New road bridge crossing (adjacent to and to the east of the SJB)

2.24 As the evidence provided by Mr Nicholson explains, a full assessment of

each strategic alternative was undertaken as part of the Project process.

The assessment process concluded that a fixed crossing to the east of the

SJB represented the only realistic option of delivering improvements in

congestion and achieving the identified scheme objectives.

2.25 A series of alternative fixed routes were then considered to the east of the

SJB all of which avoided the more environmentally sensitive lower reaches

of the Estuary. This concluded that an option known as ‘route 3A’

corresponded with the desire line for through traffic and was capable of

connecting effectively with the expressway network to the north and south

of the river. As a result, it achieved the highest proportion of trip

reassignment from the SJB when compared with other routes and

therefore best delivered the strategic and local traffic diversion required,

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 14

removing traffic from the SJB and permitting its return to local use. The

route 3A alignment also had relatively straightforward junction solutions in

comparison to other variations of the route and minimises impact upon

industrial areas and the existing highway network. In addition, as far as it

is able, it avoids the more sensitive environmental areas.

2.26 The discussions with the Department of Transport, leading up to

Programme Entry confirmation being granted in March 2006, covered

options to fund the project. It was confirmed that Mersey Gateway Project

should be delivered as a tolled road, where the road user charging regime

would also extend to the existing SJB in order to deliver the project

benefits within the grant and PFI funding limits agreed with Government.

The background to the tolling and funding arrangements is set out within

the evidence of Mr Nicholson HBC/2/1P and Mr David Parr HBC/1/1P.

2.27 In developing the project, and as an expression of their ongoing corporate

support for the project, Halton Council has identified strategic objectives

for the Mersey Gateway Project as follows.

1. To relieve the congested Silver Jubilee Bridge, thereby removing the

constraint on local and regional development and better provide for

local transport needs.

2. To apply minimum toll and road user charges to both the Mersey

Gateway Bridge and the Silver Jubilee Bridge consistent with the

level required to satisfy these constraints;

3. To improve accessibility in order to maximise local development and

regional economic growth opportunities;

4. To improve local air quality and enhance the general urban

environment;

5. To improve public transport links across the River Mersey;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 15

6. To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking; and

7. To restore effective network resilience for transport across the River

Mersey.

2.28 The adopted vision for the Project is that it will be ‘more than just

a Bridge,’ reference in that as well as providing much needed relief

for the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge, it will deliver a transport

solution which also provides a catalyst for economic change at a

local and sub-regional level through both the accessibility benefits

that it delivers and the actual physical townscape improvements

that it facilitates. There is every expectation that the Project will

come to be regarded as an iconic structure, closely associated with

the towns of Widnes and Runcorn and capable of fulfilling a role as

an object of civic and regional pride.

5. Consultation

2.29 The Project has been the subject of extensive consultation stretching over

a six-year period involving statutory consultees, business stakeholders,

landowners, and resident focus groups. The consultation splits into two

main stages:

1. Consultation carried out prior to the Department for Transport

confirmation of programme entry for the Project in March 2006

(advised on and managed by MVA Consultancy); and

2. Consultation after approval by the Mersey Gateway Executive Board

on 18th June 2007 for 14 weeks between June and September 2007

(advised on and managed by DTW Consultancy) in line with a

Consultation Strategy developed specifically for the Project.

2.30 The key stages of each included the following:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 16

1. September-October 2002 - first consultation took place on crossing

options in the form of focus group discussions with residents;

2. February 2003 – assessment of route options with Resident Focus

Groups and Business and Stakeholder workshops;

3. July 2004 – following the selection of a preferred route, further

consultation was undertaken with residents, major businesses, and

25 local authorities;

4. October 2006 – following the initial design of the Project in March

2006, all affected landowners were contacted, advising of the

possible impacts of the Project on their landholdings; and

5. June-September 2007 – extensive public consultation was

undertaken including 15 exhibitions throughout the Borough,

editorial in Council publications, a new website, information

campaign in local media, monthly e-newsletter, briefing events for

local/regional businesses and groups, gateway newsletter,

postal/phone/text feedback system and letters to general

stakeholders, statutory consultees and regional MP’s and MEP’s.

2.31 The programme of stakeholder and public consultation undertaken as part

of the Project drew out a number of consultee responses both in support

of and opposition to the scheme. Generally, the Project was well received

by stakeholders and the local community alike, in recognition of the

benefits that the Mersey Gateway could deliver. The main concerns

expressed by respondents centred around the tolling of the New Bridge,

the use of the Silver Jubilee Bridge after the opening of the Project, the

traffic impacts upon the Central Expressway, the impact on existing

commercial operators; and environmental impacts.

2.32 The design development of the Project has been influenced by consultee

responses following each phase of consultation. As far as possible, the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 17

design of the New Bridge and the wider works has had regard to the broad

comments raised by stakeholders and consultees. This has focused largely

on three key areas, as set out below:

a. Design of the new bridge

2.33 The aesthetic appeal of the new bridge was an important consideration

during the design development process. The Project is designed having

regard to its local context and its inter-relationship with neighbouring

uses. The use of materials, colour and lighting aim to ensure that the new

bridge is considered as a modern iconic structure of architectural merit,

set alongside the SJB and Aethelfleda railway bridge.

b. Preferred Route

2.34 The alignment of the Project has sought to minimise likely visual impacts

upon the Grade II listed SJB, and the Grade II* listed Aethelfleda Railway

Bridge crossing the Mersey Estuary at the Runcorn Gap, and upon existing

residential settlements. Its location will allow for the New Bridge to itself

be considered as an ‘iconic’ structure within the setting of the Mersey

Estuary, maximising links to the existing strategic road network including

M56 J12 and the A562 Speke Road.

c. Environmental Impacts

2.35 The setting of the Project has raised concern amongst some consultees

regarding potential impacts arising on existing biodiversity and wildlife

habitats. Other sources of environmental concern include possible noise

and air pollution from the movement of vehicles across the New Bridge

and approach roads.

2.36 Measures to minimise environmental impacts have been incorporated

within the Project, and these are set out in detail in the ES. Indeed the

alignment of the New Bridge so as to avoid the Middle Mersey Estuary,

(designated as a European Site, SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site) is in

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 18

recognition of its conservation value. The ES has demonstrated that the

Project will not affect the integrity and biodiversity of the Middle Mersey

Estuary SPA.

6. Planning Application Submissions

2.37 Following agreement of the fixed crossing and route alignment, and

achievement of programme entry and funding confirmation in 2006, the

process of securing planning permission for the proposals unfolded over

the course of 2007, culminating in a suite of planning submissions as

follows:

1. A planning application seeking full planning permission for works lying

within Runcorn, comprising improvements to the Central Expressway,

Weston Link, Weston Point Expressway and M56 junction 12. (CD2)

2. A planning application seeking full planning permission for works lying

within Widnes comprising modifications to the northern approaches to

the New Bridge and the SJB. (CD1)

3. An application for Listed Building Consent in respect of the proposed

works to SJB. (CD4)

2.38 Each of these submissions was lodged with Halton Council on 31st March

2008 and were described as comprising the ‘remote works’.

2.39 Planning permission for the new bridge span across the Mersey and the

balance of the road and junction works within Widnes (known as the TWA

works) was sought via a submission under the Transport and Works Act

within which there was a request for a direction that deemed planning

permission be granted by the Secretary of State. This submission was

made to the TWA Unit in May 2008.

2.40 After submission Halton Council appointed third party consultants to both

administer the application and to independently assess the technical

submissions made as part of the Environmental Statement. This process

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 19

of assessment ran from April through to July, allowing for the applications

to be presented to a special meeting of the Halton Development Control

Committee on 28th July 2008. In each instance the officer

recommendation was one of approval as attached at Appendix 1, and the

Committee resolved as follows:

a) That the application for Listed Building Consent:

“should be referred to the Secretary of State with a

recommendation that the Secretary of State approves the

application subject to conditions (as stated)”.

b) That in respect of the two planning applications:

“that both planning applications be referred to the Secretary of

State with a recommendation that they be called in and approved

subject to the following conditions (listed)”

c) That in respect of the submission under the TWA (for which Halton

were only a consultee rather than decision maker)

“Halton Borough Council having regard to all the observations made

and all the issues raised has no objection to the application subject

to the conditions accompanying the submission and the suggested

changes or additions detailed below (listed)”

2.41 The appropriate referrals were made by Halton Council shortly after the

resolution was taken.

2.42 The Government Office for the North West responded by letter of 30th

September 2008 confirming that the Secretary of State for Communities

and Local Government intended to call in the two planning applications on

the basis that they are considered to be of more than local importance,

and to ensure that they are properly considered alongside the other

applications relating to the Project. The letter confirms that the matters

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 20

on which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed about

for the purposes of her consideration of the applications are as follows:

1. Whether the proposed development accords with the development

plan for the area (in this instance the emerging replacement RSS for

the North West and Halton Unitary Development plan), having regard

to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004;

2. Whether the applications accord with the provisions of Planning Policy

Statement 1: delivering Sustainable Development and whether it

would accord with the Key Planning Objectives set out in PPS1

Supplement: Planning and Climate Change;

3. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with

Government policies in PPG2: Green Belts, especially whether the

development is considered appropriate under the provisions of PPG2;

4. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with

Government policies in PPG17: Open Space, with particular regard to

the loss of greenspace;

5. Whether the applications have fully taken into consideration the

requirements of PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation,

especially given the nature and extent of land identified and

protected under local designations, and whether the applications

accord with PPS10: Waste;

6. Whether the applications accord with PPG13: Transport. In

particular, whether they promote more sustainable transport choices

and reduce the need to travel by private transport;

7. Whether the applications will have a significant impact on features or

archaeological and heritage importance, listed buildings and

conservation areas in relation to the provisions of PPG15: Planning

and the historic Environment and PPG16: Archaeology and Planning;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 21

8. Whether the applications have fully taken into consideration the

requirements of PPS23: Pollution and PPG24: Noise, with particular

regard to the reduction in air quality and the impact of noise and

vibration;

9. Whether any permission or consent which may be granted should be

subject to any conditions and, if so, the form they should take;

2.43 My evidence at Section 9 considers and concludes on each of these

specific matters.

2.44 In addition to the matters raised by the Secretary of State for

Communities and Local Government, a further Statement of Matters was

issued by the Secretary of State for Transport in correspondence dated

20th February 2009 CD 320. The matters raised cover a range of topics

but those which refer to matters of planning and planning policy comprise

the following:

2(a) the extent of which they are consistent with national, regional and

local planning, transport and environmental policies.

3(g) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with

Government policies in PPG2; Green Belts, especially whether the

development is considered appropriate under the provision of PPG2 and, if

not, whether there are any very special circumstances sufficient to

overcome the presumption against such development.

3(h) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with

Government policies in PPG17, Open Space, in particular reference to the

loss of greenspace and the Councils proposals for replacing any open

space to be compulsorily required for the purposes of the project.

8 the conditions proposed to be attached to the deemed planning

permission for the development provided for in the draft TWA Order, if

given, and in particular whether those conditions meet the tests of DOE

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 22

Circular 11/95 of being necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and

reasonable.

2.45 My evidence considers and concludes on each of these matters. The

balance of the matters raised are addressed in the evidence of others as

appropriate to their individual disciplines.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 23

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 The Project as a whole runs from Speke Road in Widnes, passing

eastwards through Ditton Junction before spanning the Garston-Timperley

freight line, the St Helens Canal, the Mersey Estuary, and Astmoor in

Runcorn; it then links with Central Expressway and runs through to

junction 12 of the M56. The Project also includes the de-linking of Silver

Jubilee Bridge in Widnes through the removal by excavation of the

embankment and viaduct link to the Widnes eastern bypass. In addition,

the reduction in the level of use of SJB after the opening of the New

Bridge allows for a rearrangement of the carriageway configuration over

SJB to provide new pedestrian and cycling facilities. Tolling arrangements

are currently proposed utilising barrier tolling methodology (toll plazas and

toll booths) for both SJB and the proposed New Bridge and are

incorporated in the design of the Project.

3.2 Full technical details of the proposed works at each section of the Project

are described in the original application papers and are shown on the

accompanying plans. The works are also described in full detail in the

evidence of Mr Mike Jones HBC/5/1P. For the purposes of my evidence

therefore I set out below only a brief description of the Project, adopting

for consistency the project sub division headings utilised elsewhere but

focusing in particular on the planning policy status and land use context of

the land take of the Project works.

Area A: Main Toll Plaza

3.3 The western extent of the main alignment of the Project is the Ditton

roundabout. From there it follows the line of Speke Road before widening

out along the southern edge of the highway to provide the area required

for the tolling infrastructure. In doing so it incorporates land currently

occupied by the disused St Michael Jubilee Golf Course which is shown

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 24

within the Halton UDP Proposals Map as washed over by a Greenspace

allocation (Policy GE6).

Area B: Ditton Junction to Freight Line

3.4 The alignment runs eastwards from the tolling plaza to connect with an

upgraded Ditton junction arrangement (signal controlled and grade

separated) which largely occupies existing highway land. At this point the

route begins to rise, supported by an embankment rising to a maximum

height of 9m as it runs through to the existing Garston-Timperley freight

line. The construction of the carriageway and associated embankment

would take up land occupied by old industrial buildings and a scrap metal

yard. This whole section is identified within the UDP as a Regeneration

Action Area (Policy RG1 and RG2).

Area C: Freight Line to St. Helens Canal

3.5 From the freight line the carriageway extends south eastwards to the St

Helens Canal, initially on embankment but spanning the freight line,

Victoria Road and the new Widnes loops junction arrangement by means

of single and multi-span bridge arrangements. The works will result in the

loss of some existing premises, the land taken is mainly in existing

industrial use. In policy terms Area C sits wholly within the Southern

Widnes Regeneration Area designation (Policy RG1) and encapsulates a

small area of greenspace designation (GE6).

3.6 The alignment would be carried over the St Helens Canal on a three span

structure, running into the North Abutment of the main Mersey Gateway

Bridge. The Canal is identified within the UDP as an Environmental Priority

Area (Policy BE3) whilst the abutment rests within the Widnes Warth

estuary edge which at this point is identified within the UDP as an Area of

Special Landscape Value (Policy GE23), as a Coastal Zone Undeveloped

(Policy GE30) and as Greenspace (GE6).

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 25

Area D: Mersey Gateway Bridge

3.7 From the North Abutment the alignment runs southwards over Widnes

Warth Saltmarsh, crosses the Mersey Estuary via four spans supported by

three towers and then on the south side of the estuary crosses Astmoor

Saltmarsh, Wigg Island and the Manchester Ship Canal before meeting the

South Abutment at Astmoor Industrial Estate.

3.8 The route between the two abutments passes over diverse land parcels

which are identified within the Halton UDP and associated policy

framework as benefiting from several land-use designations. These are as

follows:

1. Widnes Warth

a) Area of Special Landscape Value (Policy GE23)

b) Coastal Zone Undeveloped (Policy GE30)

c) Greenspace (Policy GE6)

d) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy GE19)

2. Mersey Estuary

a) Area of Special Landscape Value ((Policy GE23)

b) Coastal Zone Undeveloped (Policy GE30)

c) Greenspace (Policy GE6)

d) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy GE19)

3. Astmoor Saltmarsh and Wigg Island

a) Area of Special Landscape Value (Part) (Policy GE23)

b) Green Belt (Policy GE29)

c) Coastal Zone Undeveloped (Part) (Policy GE30)

d) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy GE19)

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 26

e) Proposed Greenspace (Policy GE7)

f) Important Landscape Feature (Policy GE24)

g) Environmental Priority Area (Policy BE3)

h) Potential Greenways (Policies TP9, GE10)

i) Local Nature Reserve (Post Proposal Map Allocation) (Policy GE20)

3.9 The area underneath and around the proposed route of the Bridge would

need to be cleared of existing structures, which are mainly in industrial

use at present.

Area E: Astmoor Viaduct

3.10 From the southern Abutment the alignment heads south via a high level

multi-span viaduct, crossing Astmoor industrial park, the existing

Bridgewater Junction and the Bridgewater Canal. The carriageway would

then join the existing Central Expressway at Halton Brow. From south of

Astmoor Industrial Estate the land-use allocations oversailed by the

carriageway comprise:

1. Astmoor Industrial

a) Primary Employment Area (Policy E3)

2. Bridgewater Junction

b) Proposed Greenway (Policy TP9 GE6)

c) Greenspace (Policy GE6)

d) Edge of the Castlefields and Norton Regeneration Action Area

(Policy RG6)

3. Bridgewater Canal

a) Important Landscape Feature (Policy GE24)

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 27

Area F: Bridgewater Junction

3.11 The Bridgewater junction is a complex of structures and slip roads to

provide grade separation and access to and from the Central Expressway

and Daresbury/Bridgewater Expressways Works will include the closure of

links to the Daresbury/Bridgewater Expressways and brought into the new

roundabout. A two-level interchange will be created. The majority of this

work is proposed to take place within the unallocated highway boundary,

although there is a small area of allocated greenspace (GE6) located

within the route alignment.

Area G: Central Expressway, Lodge Lane Junction

and Weston Link Junction

3.12 From Halton Brow the Project adopts the existing line of the Central

Expressway, through to Lodge Lane Junction. Improvements to the

existing highway alignment would take place along the whole route. All of

this work is proposed to take place within the highway boundary which is

unallocated within the Halton UDP.

Area H: M56 Junction 12

3.13 The existing roundabout to the north of the M56 junction 12 will be

modified to include a signal controlled link directly across the centre of the

existing roundabout for the main line of the highway. Works will include

highway realignment and the installation of new traffic signals. The

roundabout is shown as unallocated within the Halton UDP, surrounded by

grass verges allocated as greenspace under policy GE6.

Area I: Silver Jubilee Bridge to Ditton Junction

3.14 A second element of the Project is the works to SJB and its connection

northwards into the re-modelled Ditton Junction. This includes

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 28

downgrading the carriageway to a single lane in each direction and the

introduction of footpath and cycle options on the deck of the SJB.

3.15 A key policy consideration is that the SJB is a grade 2 listed structure

whilst the adjacent Aethelfleda railway bridge is Grade 2* listed.

3.16 Moving north from the SJB to Ditton junction, the Project involves the

introduction of toll booths (wholly within the new carriageway tolls plazas)

and the physical demolition of the Widnes by-pass link road and related

structures. This involves land lying within the South Widnes Regeneration

Action Area (Policy RG1).

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 29

4. PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The policy framework against which the Project should be assessed has

been set out twice previously as part of the planning application

submissions as follows:

- At Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement, where the review was

undertaken on a document basis, working from European policy

through national and regional policy and concluding with the Halton

UDP and emerging Local Development Framework;

- At Chapter 4 of the Planning Statement, where the review was

undertaken on a topic basis

4.2 The range of European and national planning policy guidance to the

Project remains largely as set out within the supporting documentation.

The development plan has however changed in that the revision to the

Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has now been approved. The

development plan now comprises the North West of England Plan Regional

Spatial Strategy to 2021 (CD109) and the adopted Halton Unitary

Development Plan (2005) (CD115). Similarly since the time of the

application submissions progress has been made on the LDF and DPD

documents.

4.3 By way of context to my evidence therefore, the following section sets out

the key headline policies relevant to the Project, adopting the topic-based

approach; this then allows for an appraisal of the Project against these

policy provisions in subsequent sections of my evidence.

Topic 1 - Mersey Gateway Bridge

4.4 The Development Plan expresses unequivocal support for the development

of a new Mersey Crossing not only in principle but also specifically in the

broad location as proposed within the Project works. Support for the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 30

Mersey Gateway Project is established within the RSS and the Halton UDP,

as follows:

a) Policy RT10 of RSS establishes the framework through which the

principles for major transport investment and management schemes

of regional significance will be established. Whilst the policy adopts a

criteria based approach to transport priorities, the policy suggests

that those for which funding has been secured (such as the Mersey

Gateway Project) will be identified in an Implementation Plan which

will be supplementary to RSS policy, but which is not yet published.

b) Policy S14 of the Halton UDP promotes a new crossing of the River

Mersey, east of SJB, to relieve congestion on the existing Bridge. The

policy identifies that the existing SJB is severely congested and

recognised to represent an economic constraint to the region, and to

the development of an integrated transport strategy for Halton. The

supporting text confirms that it is a strategic aim of both the Councils'

Local Transport Plan and Part 1 of the UDP to pursue the provision of

a new, sustainable crossing of the Mersey. This requirement is set

out in policy S14, which states:

“A scheme for a new crossing of the River Mersey, east of the

existing Silver Jubilee Bridge will be promoted to relieve

congestion on the existing bridge as part of an integrated

transport system for Halton and the wider regional transport

network. Any proposed route of the new crossing will be the

subject of an environmental assessment.”

4.5 The supporting text at paragraph 2 cross refers to a plan which was

included within the Councils LTP. The plan (identified as Map 2 in the

UDP) is copied below.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 31

Copy of Map 2 as included within the supporting text of policy S14

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 32

4.6 It is worth noting at this stage that both the route options on the south

side of the river involve an alignment which crosses the Green Belt at

Wigg Island. Out of the options the Project proposals have adopted the

easternmost alignment off Central Expressway and the West of Thermphos

landfall location within Widnes.

4.7 Outside the Development Plan, Halton Council has prepared two full non-

statutory Local Transport Plans (CD 103 and 105) which support the

Project. The development of a New Mersey Crossing is recognised as

Priority 1, delivering significant journey time savings for cross-river traffic,

and facilitating the sustainable movement of local traffic across SJB.

4.8 Equally, the North West Regional Economic Strategy (2006) (CD 104)

recognises the delivery of a second Mersey crossing as an important

means of relieving congestion, facilitating reliable access to Liverpool

Airport and the wider City Region. This expressly recognises economic

benefits associated with the Project.

Topic 2 - Sustainable Development

4.9 A key Government objective is to encourage the development of land of a

suitable quality, in appropriate locations, which can support new forms of

development and in turn contribute towards less reliance on the private

car.

4.10 Whilst sustainable development is at the forefront of the Government’s

agenda, PPS1 recognises the importance of integrating new development

within the existing natural and historic environment, both rural and urban,

in order not to diminish the importance and contribution of valued

townspaces, landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. To this

end, PPS1 supports new development compatible with its surroundings

and context.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 33

4.11 At a national level, PPS1 promotes development which delivers economic,

social and environmental benefits. An important element of this includes

accessibility to jobs and local services by public transport, walking and

cycling, alongside the private car.

4.12 The Government’s recent focus on climate change has resulted in

the publication of PPS1 ‘Planning and Climate Change -

Supplement to PPS1’ (2007). This recognises the role of spatial

planning in contributing to a reduction in emissions and stabilising

climate change in the design of new development and

infrastructure to serve communities, and is a further ingredient of

sustainability. Overall, it recognises the contribution that planning

makes towards the Government’s climate change programme,

adopting energy efficient measures within new developments.

4.13 The Development Plan builds on the Government’s sustainability principles

expressed in PPS1 by way of the following:

1. Policy DP1 establishes the Strategy’s core spatial principles to which

all individual proposals, schemes and investment decisions should

adhere. These principles are amplified through policies DP2-9, as

follows:

• There is support for the delivery of sustainable communities,

enhancing the quality of the built, natural and living environments;

• There is recognition of the need to enhance economic performance

between the North West and other parts of the UK;

• A sequential approach to development is encouraged, focusing upon

the re-use of disused land and buildings to establish well designed,

mixed-use neighbourhoods;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 34

• Development is promoted which reduces the need for and reliance

on the private car, encouraging a shift to sustainable transport for

the movement of people and freight;

• The protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including

the natural and historic environment, and maximising opportunities

for regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas are supported;

• In line with the themes of the PPS1 Climate Change Supplement,

there is a drive towards a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions,

including transport, possibly through a reduction in traffic growth,

and the promotion of alternatives including walking, cycling and

public transport.

2. A broad range of general requirements are set out in policy BE1 of

the Halton UDP for new development; this recognises the importance

of the natural and historic environment, drawing upon their

protection, conservation and enhancement as key contributory factors

towards economic prosperity and urban regeneration.

3. Policy BE2 supports the need for high-quality design as a key

component of sustainable development. A series of key design

factors, including layout, density, scale and massing, are established

which proposals should perform positively against. Integration of

development proposals with positive characteristics of the existing

urban form, including the historic fabric and nature conservation of

the area, is vital. The delivery of landmark features is encouraged

where these will create an attractive reference point.

4.14 The Project constitutes road-based development, but one which facilitates

public transport, walking and cycling in a way which would not possible

without the works. The project works also use tolling to encourage modal

change and limit traffic growth and consideration is therefore to be given

to the extent to which this accords with the Government’s sustainability

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 35

objectives and the desire to reduce the use of the private car.

Nevertheless this issue was assessed in application submission papers

(primarily the ES and Planning Statement) and is considered later within

my evidence. As a general point of principle however it should be noted

that policy support for the Project (as set out in the UDP as approved in

April 2005 and in particular the RSS as approved in October 2008) was

formulated and endorsed in the wider context of the Governments

Sustainability policy framework as principally set out within PPG13 (2001),

PPS1 (2006) and its supplement (2008). The principle of the scheme has

therefore developed within and been tested against this policy background

and an assumption of general consistency must arise.

Topic 3 - Transportation

4.15 The Government has recognised the importance of an integrated transport

system as a key component in achieving its objectives for a sustainable

future. To deliver these aims, a series of framework objectives have been

identified over the past ten years within a number of non-statutory policy

documents outlining the long-term vision for integrated transport

development across the UK:

1. Transport White Paper “A New Deal for Transport: Better for

Everyone” (1998)

2. Transport Ten Year Plan (2000)

3. Transport White Paper “The Future of Transport: A network for

2030” (July 2004)

4. Towards a Sustainable Transport System (October 2007)

5. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main report (November

2008)

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 36

6. These documents share common strands and framework objectives

to realise the Government’s vision for an integrated transport

system, capable of tackling the problems of congestion and

pollution. Across the range of documents, the key aspirations can

be summarised as follows:

a) Reduce pollution from transport; (pg 17, Transport Paper “A New

Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”)

b) Improve air quality; (pg 17, Transport Paper “A New Deal for

Transport: Better for Everyone”)

c) Making walking and cycling a real alternative for local trips; (Pg 12,

para 6 Transport White Paper “The Future of Transport”)

d) Reduce noise and vibration from transport; (pg 17, Transport Paper

“A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”)

e) The provision of modern, high-quality, public transport services

both locally and nationally (Transport Ten Year Plan para 1.4,

2000);

f) Improve transport safety for users, those who work in the industry

and the general public; ; (pg 17, Transport Paper “A New Deal for

Transport: Better for Everyone”)

g) Provide reliable and efficient transport networks to support national

economic competitiveness (para 1.5 delivering a Sustainable

transport System: Main Report;

h) Reduce social exclusion promoting greater equality of opportunity

for all citizens with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society

(para 1.5, Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report)

i) Deliver a well maintained and coherent road network with real-time

driver information for strategic routes and reduced congestion,

(para 6.27 (Transport Ten Year Plan 2000)

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 37

j) Adding capacity to the most congested corridors, largely by

widening existing trunk roads (para 1.5, Delivering a Sustainable

Transport System: Main Report).

k) Protect people’s safety, security and health (para 14, page 10,

Towards a Sustainable Transport System).

4.16 These framework objectives are considered to represent key opportunities

to enhance environmental, economic and social conditions. The

Government advocates a transport network that can meet the challenges

of a growing economy and the increased demand for travel; where

necessary, this includes the enhancement of existing road networks

through additional capacity, assuming any environmental and social costs

can be justified.

4.17 Within this framework, there is support for proposals which minimise

potential environmental impacts upon the natural, historic and built form,

including disturbance to wildlife, the marine environment and humans

alike, and which adopts a sequential approach to development. Where new

road-building is the only option, complementary design solutions are

encouraged which protect the existing character and appearance of its

setting.

4.18 In the White Paper of May 2007, entitled Planning for a Sustainable

Future, the Government established five transport objectives, building

upon the findings of the Eddington Study, as follows:

1) Maximise the competitiveness and productivity of the economy;

2) Address climate change, by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases;

3) Protect people’s safety, security and health;

4) Improve the quality of life; and

5) Promote greater equality of opportunity.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 38

4.19 These aims demonstrate the importance of the transport network to

economic references performance, and the serious threat which

congestion poses to future economic growth. A series of measures to work

alongside investment in new transport infrastructure are encouraged,

including road pricing and regulation, traffic management, travel planning,

and the development of new technologies.

4.20 Although the Government’s drive towards sustainable development

involves the provision and availability of alternative transport modes, the

White Paper accepts that in situations of sustained congestion during peak

periods, increased network capacity may represent the only solution. One

of the measures discussed includes road pricing, delivering environmental

benefits through a reduction in carbon emissions and pollutants.

4.21 The Government’s objectives for an integrated transport and planning

system are firmly expressed as policy in PPG13. The key messages of

support are:

1. Achieve more effective integration of planning and transport at the

national, regional strategic and local level to promote sustainable

transport choices for both people and moving freight; (para 4(1)).

2. Promote accessibility to jobs, shops, leisure facilities and services by

public transport, walking and cycling; (para 4(2))

3. Promote walking and cycling through the provision of wider

pavements, including the re-allocation of road space to cyclists and

pedestrians, and environmental improvements including improved

lighting (para 77(1));

4. Promote pedestrian-friendly road crossings which afford pedestrians

greater priority at traffic signals and avoid long detours and waiting

times, indirect footbridges or underpasses; and (para 77(2))

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 39

5. Improvement of facilities off the carriageway, such as cycle tracks or

paths (para 80(5)).

4.22 Whilst supporting a move towards less reliance on the private car, tying in

with the Government’s wider sustainability agenda, PPG13 accepts that

the car will continue to have an important role to play in some journeys.

To this end, PPG13 supports the protection of sites and routes which could

be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for future

passenger and freight movements. Schemes are encouraged to avoid or

mitigate environmental impacts where possible, both at construction and

operation.

4.23 Alongside the provisions of PPG13, the Development Plan comprises a

series of generic transport based policies, as follows:

1. Policy RT1 of RSS encourages the development of sustainable,

integrated and accessible transport solutions for all users, alongside

the importance of improved journey time reliability. Whilst road-

building is not viewed as environmentally nor economically

sustainable, in the context of the Project this will facilitate

improvements to the local public transport network through the

effective use of the SJB, an overriding objective of the Government’s

sustainability agenda.

2. Policy RT2 encourages improvements to public transport as part of a

comprehensive approach to discourage car use, alongside effective

provision for pedestrians and cyclists. This includes support for the

reallocation of road space in favour of public transport, a key

component of the Project.

3. Policy RT4 focuses on the management, maintenance and

improvements of the Regional Highway Network and existing

infrastructure. This promotes improvements to road safety, a

reduction in traffic growth, and maintained environmental standards

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 40

thus mitigating impacts of road traffic. The need for major highway

improvements is recognised in some cases, although policy advises

this should only be considered following an examination of all

practical alternative solutions to a particular problem.

4.24 Building on the principles of RSS, the RES recognises the importance of an

efficient transport network to support the economic growth of the heart of

the Liverpool City-Region. This includes proposals which facilitate

improved road access to Liverpool City Centre, efficient public transport

services, and reductions in road congestion.

Topic 4 - Green Belt

4.25 The proposed alignment of the Project crosses an area of land designated

as Green Belt at Wigg Island, north of Astmoor Industrial Estate. As well

as oversailing this land, the Project requires that bridge piers are sited

within the Green Belt.

4.26 Government policy on Green Belt is contained within PPG2 (CD68). The

guidance explains the history and extent of Green Belts, their purpose and

objectives and sets a presumption against inappropriate development.

Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 sets out the five specific purposes of Green Belt, as

follows:

a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;

b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

c) Assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and

e) Assisting in urban regeneration, by recycling of derelict land.

4.27 There is no suggestion or expectation that all Green Belt can meet each of

the five purposes. The guidance advises that following designation as

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 41

Green Belt, land within them has a positive role to play in achieving the

following six objectives:

1) To provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the

urban population;

2) To provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation

near urban areas;

3) To retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to

where people live;

4) To improve damaged and derelict land around towns;

5) To secure nature conservation interest; and

6) To retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

The policy confirms that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to

prevent urban sprawl; the most important attribute of Green Belts is

identified as their openness and that inappropriate development is, by

definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The construction of new buildings in

the Green Belt is stated to constitute inappropriate development unless for

one of the five stated purposes as set out at paragraph 3.4, none of which

apply to the Projects proposals.

4.28 The Development Plan largely reflects the provisions of PPG2, confirming

within the RSS and particularly at UDP policies S21 and GE1 that planning

permission will not be given for inappropriate development in the Green

Belt except in very special circumstances:

4.29 Whilst the UDP Green Belt policies reflect the restrictive provisions of

PPG2, the UDP at policy S14 also promotes the construction of a new

crossing of the Mersey which, as indicated in the two alternative alignment

routes shown on Map 2 (UDP page 38), inevitably needs to cross Green

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 42

Belt land at Astmoor Saltmarsh and Wigg Island. This matter is taken up

further within my evidence.

4.30 I make the point later in my evidence as to the requirement for a proposal

to be considered against the Plan as a whole, acknowledging the

possibility that different policies may pull in different directions,

particularly with regard to major development proposals. It is worth

noting at this stage however that whilst PPG2 states that inappropriate

development should not be approved in Green Belts except in very special

circumstances, the clear development plan support for the Project and the

acknowledgement within the UDP that any alignment must by necessity

must utilise Green Belt land, comprises a key element (alongside other

matters identified later in my evidence) capable of comprising the

necessary very special circumstances identified within PPG2.

Topic 5 - Air Quality

4.31 Government policy set out in PPS23 (CD66) requires the careful siting and

planning of polluting activities, necessary for wider social and economic

reasons, subject to planning conditions to ensure that adverse effects are

minimised and contained within acceptable limits.

4.32 The Development Plan encourages a reduction in carbon emissions

through a series of measures outlined under policy DP9. These include an

increased focus upon energy efficient development, and a reduction in

traffic growth alongside the promotion of walking, cycling and public

transport.

4.33 Alongside RSS, the UDP has regard to air quality through two separate

policies:

a) Policy PR1, whereby development likely to have an unacceptable effect

on air quality, assessed having regard to local environmental amenity,

public health and economic confidence, is not generally supported;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 43

b) Policy TP19, relating specifically to transport matters, applies restrictive

provisions to new traffic generating development likely to create

additional pollution, or which will intensify the pollution in areas where

air quality is already shown to be poor.

4.34 The latter policy has regard to the guidance note on Air Quality and Land

Use Planning issued under section 88 of the Environment Act 1995.

Topic 6 - Noise

4.35 PPG24 (CD73) establishes Government guidance which seeks to minimise

adverse impacts of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on new

development. To enhance noise quality there is support for the location of

noise generating uses within areas where noise is not an important

consideration. In particular it is concluded that, development should not

cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.

4.36 However, there is an acceptance of cases where the segregation of land-

uses will not be possible. In such circumstances, including the Project,

mitigation measures to control the source of, or limit exposure to, noise

generating uses are deemed appropriate.

4.37 The Development Plan contains restrictive policy provisions through policy

PR2 of the UDP, which seeks to control new development which may cause

a significant increase in noise levels, and where it is likely to affect land

allocated for residential or any other existing noise sensitive land uses.

The use of planning conditions will be sought to ensure noise nuisance is

not a problem.

Topic 7 - Water Quality

4.38 The Development Plan supports the protection and enhancement of water

quality within new development. To manage this process, the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 44

Development Plan establishes specific objectives which new development

should seek to satisfy:

1. RSS policy EM5 encourages new developments, including transport

proposals, to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and water

conservation and efficiency measures. These are viewed as

important factors in helping to protect the quality and quantity of

surface, ground and coastal waters.

2. Policy PR5 of the UDP supports proposals unlikely to have an

unacceptable effect on the water quality of water bodies including

rivers, lakes and canals, and which does not pose an unacceptable

risk to the quality of groundwater. Where necessary, adequate

pollution measures should be incorporated into new developments

to minimise risks of water pollution.

Topic 8 – Landscape and Visual Amenity

4.39 National policy guidance in respect of landscape and visual amenity

matters is set out at a number of locations, primarily:

a) Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) No.1 Delivering Sustainable

Development, 2005 (Ref. CD62);

b) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG2) Green Belt (Ref. CD68);

c) Planning Policy Statement (PPS7) Sustainable Development in Rural

Areas, 2004; (CD305) and

d) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG15) Planning and The Historic

Environment (Ref. CD70);

4.40 PPS1 states that a key government objective is ‘protecting and enhancing

the natural and historic environment......the quality and character of the

countryside and existing communities’. (Paragraph 17)

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 45

4.41 PPG2 states that “Green belt should not be injured by proposals for

development within or conspicuous from the Green belt which, although

they would not prejudice purposes of including land in green belt, might

be visually detrimental by reasons of their siting, materials or design.”

(Paragraph 3.15).

4.42 PPS7 states that planning authorities should continue to ensure that the

quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where

possible, enhanced. It also states that particular regard should be had to

any areas that have been statutorily designated for their landscape,

wildlife or historic qualities where greater priority should be given to the

restraint of potentially damaging development. (Paragraph 1)

4.43 PPS7 goes on to state that nationally designated areas such as National

Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) have been

confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in

relation to landscape and scenic beauty. (Paragraph 21)

4.44 PPG15 states that planning authorities should have “regard to certain

matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the

building”. (Paragraph 2.16)

4.45 PPG15 also sets out requirements in respect to the preservation and

enhancement of conservation areas, and holds that it may be legitimate in

appropriate circumstances to consider the setting of buildings that form

the heart of that area.

4.46 Development plan guidance is provided at policy DP7 of the RSS which

promotes reclamation of ‘derelict land and remediating contaminated land

for end-uses to improve the image of the region’.

4.47 The UDP contains a range of policies which seek to monitor Ancient

Woodlands where designated (Policy GE22), the protection of Areas of

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 46

Special Landscape Value (GE23) and the protection of Important

Landscape Features (GE24).

Topic 9 – Built and Historic Environment

4.48 A key element of the Government’s sustainability agenda is to integrate

new development with the existing fabric of an area, whilst protecting and

enhancing the existing built and historic environment.

4.49 At national level, PPG15 (CD70) and PPG16 (CD71) express Government

guidance on achieving these objectives. Each document outlines key

themes, as follows:

PPG15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1994)

a) Areas of special architectural or historic interest should be preserved

and enhanced;

b) Development is encouraged which avoids or minimises impacts on the

various elements of the historic environment and its setting;

c) Work to listed structures, including historic bridges such as the SJB,

should meet new national or European requirements. Sympathetic

remedial measures, which restore the carrying capacity and extend

the life of these structures whilst retaining their character, are

considered appropriate, as are their future use by pedestrians and

cyclists.

d) Policy supports the reuse of structures as part of new transport

schemes, and which are environmentally advantageous.

PPG16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ (1990)

a) Archaeological remains are seen as a finite and non-renewable

resource;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 47

b) Appropriate management is considered essential to ensure the

survival of remains in good condition.

c) The preservation of important remains in situ is supported. Where

this is not possible, an archaeological excavation for the purposes of

“preservation by record” is required.

d) It should be presumed that nationally important archaeological

remains will be preserved in situ;

4.50 Alongside these objectives, the Development Plan, in particular within the

UDP, sets out a range of policies which seeks to control development

within the historic and built environment as follows:

1. RSS policy EM1 encourages the protection of the historic

environment, with support for proposals which avoid loss or

damage to environmental assets and features;

2. UDP policy BE1 sets out the general requirement for built

development, with specific regards to the requirement to conserve

the natural and historic environment.

3. UDP policy BE2 address itself to the need to deliver design quality.

4. UDP policy BE3 sets out the particular emphasis on design matters

within Environmental Priority Areas (such as at Astmoor

Saltmarsh/Wigg Island).

5. UDP policy BE4 refers to the need to protect Scheduled Ancient

Monuments.

6. UDP policies BE5 and BE6 refer to the need to protect sites of

archaeological importance.

7. UDP policies BE7 to B10 refer to matters relating to the impact of

development on listed buildings within Halton.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 48

8. UDP policies BE11 to BE114 refers to matters relating to the impact

of development within Conservation Areas within Halton.

Topic 10 - Natural Environment

4.51 Four strands of wider legislative policy seek to protect and enhance

existing key features of the natural environment; European, National,

Regional and Local.

4.52 European Law, set out within the Habitats Regulations Directive

92/43/EEC, requires a Habitats Regulation Assessment (“HRA”) to be

undertaken to assess plans and development projects that impact on

European (Natura 2000) Sites. The HRA should establish the impacts of a

land-use plan against any conservation objectives of the site, and whether

development would adversely affect the site’s integrity. Where significant

negative effects are identified, the regulations require that alternative

options be examined.

4.53 As a matter of national Government policy, Appropriate Assessment

should also be undertaken to assess development proposals which could

affect potential SPAs, candidate SACs and listed Ramsar Sites.

4.54 Also at a national level, PPS9 establishes the Government’s vision for the

conservation and enhancement of biological diversity across England.

Policy seeks to avoid development likely to have an adverse effect on land

within or outside a SSSI. However, support is offered in exceptional

circumstances; where it has been demonstrated that the benefits of the

development clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on

the features of the site that make it if special scientific interest, and any

broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs.

4.55 At a regional level, within the Development Plan, RSS policy RDF3

encourages proposals to safeguard, restore and enhance the natural

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 49

heritage assets of the region’s coast, encompassing Ramsar sites, SPA’s,

and SAC’s, National Nature Reserves, and SSSI’s.

4.56 A number of generic policies within the UDP lend themselves to support

the protection, retention and enhancement of important natural

environmental features, as follows:

1. Policy GE17 protects sites from inappropriate development, other

than in exceptional circumstances; this includes a lack of

alternatives, over-riding public interest for the development or land-

use change, and beneficial consequences on human health or public

safety.

2. Policy GE18 restricts development likely to have a significant effect,

directly or indirectly, on a SSSI unless the reasons for development

clearly outweigh the nature conservation of the site itself.

3. The provisions of policy GE23 regulate development within Areas of

Special Landscape Value where it is demonstrated that these will

have an unacceptable effect on the visual and physical

characteristics for which an area was originally designated.

4. Policy GE24 does not lend support for proposals where an

unacceptable effect on the visual or physical characteristics for

which a site was designated as having ‘Important Landscape

Features’ will result.

Topic 11 - Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

4.57 PPS9 sets out the Government’s focus on the conservation and

enhancement of biological diversity across England. A series of key

principles are established, against which potential impacts of planning

decisions on biodiversity and geological conservation are assessed. This is

accompanied by ODPM Circular 06/2005 which provides administrative

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 50

guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature

conservation.

4.58 Key themes arising from PPS9 are as follows:

a) There is support for planning decisions which maintain and enhance,

restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests;

b) The conservation, enhancement and restoration of biodiversity and

geology is encouraged, both individually and cumulatively;

c) Policy advocates rural renewal and urban renaissance through the

enhancement of biodiversity in green spaces and amongst

development to encourage use by wildlife and valued by people;

d) Compensatory measures are supported where development impacts

upon biodiversity and geological interests cannot be prevented or

adequately mitigated against.

4.59 Within the Development Plan, RSS policy EM1 recognises the importance

of protecting and conserving the natural environment and its assets,

including trees, woodlands and forests, where possible avoiding loss or

damage of these and mitigating against any unavoidable damage. An

integrated approach to the management of the landscape and the natural

environment is encouraged, within both rural and urban areas. The UDP

contains a range of policies which seek to protect sites of International,

national and local importance (policies GE17, GE18, GE19 and GE20)

alongside a particular concern with species protection at policy GE21.

Topic 12 - Waste

4.60 PPS10 establishes Government policy on waste. The document serves two

purposes; firstly, it establishes the broad principles for the management of

waste with respect to the development of strategies, regeneration and the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 51

prudent use of resources; secondly, it sets out the Government’s policy on

the planning of new waste management facilities.

4.61 The guidance encourages planning authorities to take into account waste

management needs for all waste streams in their area at a strategic level.

This includes commercial, industrial, and construction waste arisings.

Topic 13 - Open Space and Greenspace

4.62 Open space is defined in the 1990 Act as land laid out as a public garden,

or used for the purposes of public recreation. Government guidance as

set out PPG17 confirms open space should be taken to mean all open

space of public value which offer opportunities for sport or recreation and

can act as a visual amenity.

4.63 Government policy supports the retention and protection of a sufficient

supply of recreational open space provision from development. To this

end, PPG17 contains several policy tests designed to prevent the loss of

open space. In summary:

a) The loss of open space, sports and recreational buildings and land is

restricted, unless demonstrated that the open space or buildings and

land are surplus to requirements;

b) Local Authorities are encouraged to weigh the benefits being offered

to the community against the loss of open space that will occur;

c) Open spaces should not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic

flows, or other encroachment as a consequence of development;

d) Compensatory provision of equivalent or superior quantity or quality,

and in a suitably accessible location, is supported in instances where

open space will be lost;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 52

e) There is support for their retention and extension of Public Rights of

Way, and their role as an important recreational facility;

4.64 Alongside Government policy, the Development Plan expresses policy

support in favour of the protection of existing greenspace. In particular,

RSS policy EM3 recognises the need to conserve and enhance existing

green infrastructure. There is emphasis on proposals to incorporate new

green infrastructure, particularly through area based regeneration

initiatives and major schemes.

4.65 The UDP goes on to define specific areas of Greenspace (which does not

necessarily include all areas of open space and should not be equated with

open space) Policy GE6 restricts development within such designated and

proposed Greenspace, unless any of the following criteria are met:

a) Development on part of the site would fund improvements that raise

the overall amenity value of the greenspace;

b) The developer provides a suitable replacement greenspace of at least

equal size and amenity value, or significantly enhances the amenity

value of nearby greenspace;

c) Compensatory provision is provided within a convenient location; and

d) There are clear and convincing reasons why development is required;

and

e) The loss of amenity value will be adequately compensated.

4.66 As is set out within the evidence of Mr Beswick HBC/7/1P, some

compensatory open space provision is proposed as part of the Project

works. As a result of the legislative procedure associated with the

Compulsory Purchase powers conveyed by the TWA Order, particular

regard has to be had to circumstances where land that is being acquired

constitutes open space within a particular definition of the phrase.

Through the submission of an application for a Certificate under section 19

of the Acquisitions of Land Act 1981, which also provides the relevant

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 53

definition, an area of exchange land is being offered in respect of the loss

of one of the incidental areas of open space that is being lost in Widnes,

close to the Widnes Loops element of the Project works.

Topic 14 - Flood Risk

4.67 Government policy on development and flood risk is set out in PPS25.

This requires flood-risk to be taken into account at all stages of the

planning process to avoid inappropriate development, and direct

development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is,

exceptionally, necessary in such areas proposals should not exacerbate

flood-risk elsewhere and, where possible, reduce overall flood-risk.

4.68 PPS25 identifies road and rail embankments and other existing transport

infrastructure as potentially affecting water flows during floods. Policy

encourages the inclusion of flood management measures in proposals at

the initial design stage.

4.69 Building on these principles, RSS policy EM5 supports the quantitative and

qualitative protection of surface, ground and coastal waters and effective

flood management, including the provision of mitigation measures, within

new developments.

4.70 In accordance with the provisions of PPS25 and EM5, a Flood Risk

Assessment of the Project has been undertaken, the findings of which are

incorporated in the ES and are set out within the evidence of Mr Paul

Norton, HBC/13/1P.

Topic 15 - Economic Development

4.71 The Regional Spatial Strategy contains wide-ranging policy support for the

economic development of land and buildings in Runcorn and Widnes up to

2026, as follows:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 54

4.72 Policy RDF1 supports the economic growth and urban regeneration of

regional towns and cities across the North West. Runcorn and Widnes are

identified as Regional Towns within the settlement hierarchy;

4.73 Policy W1 encourages economic development which will strengthen the

economy of the North West. Whilst the policy in the main is not relevant to

the Project, one of the key objectives of this is to ensure the safe, reliable

and effective operation of the region’s transport networks and

infrastructure in accordance with the policies and priorities of the Regional

Transport Strategy, building on the region’s strengths, in particular the

three City Regions of Manchester, Liverpool and Central Lancashire;

4.74 Policy LCR3 supports a focus on economic development and resources in,

among other places, Runcorn and Widnes, maintaining and enhancing the

role of Runcorn and Widnes, and providing community facilities, services

and employment;

4.75 In addition, the UDP comprises policies RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG6 which

expressly promote the economic regeneration of Southern Widnes, Central

Widnes, Widnes Waterfront, and Castlefields and Norton Priory

respectively for mixed-use development.

4.76 There is a clear aspiration that the Project will become a catalyst for

communities, regeneration and investment within Halton and across the

region. As a result of the Project certain land will be released, connectivity

improved, the performance and roles of highways changed, public realm

opportunities will arise. In short, physical regeneration will be facilitated.

4.77 In seeking to capture these benefits, Halton Borough Council undertook a

review exercise which generated a Regeneration Strategy. As well as

informing the Council’s priorities for physical investment and urban

renewal, the Strategy seeks to inform the next iteration of Council policy,

including the Community Strategy, the Corporate Plan, and the Local

Development Framework. The latter is of particular relevance as the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 55

Regeneration Strategy will directly inform the preparation of the Southern

Widnes SPD.

4.78 The Regeneration Strategy seeks to capture as far as possible the wide

ranging economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration

opportunities that the Mersey Gateway Project would present.

4.79 The Strategy addresses itself to an area of approximately 20 square

kilometres within the Borough of Halton. Within Widnes, this comprises

the area south of the town centre, to the east of the Mersey Multimodal

Gateway and to the west of the Widnes Waterfront Economic Development

Zone. It also covers a larger expanse of Runcorn, including the Old Town,

Halton Lea, Rocksavage and Clifton, and the Astmoor Industrial Estate.

The Strategy seeks to identify new physical opportunities for change as

part of the vision to create high-quality, desirable and sustainable places,

building upon and adding value to the considerable levels of investment

delivered and planned. The Strategy area also includes the existing Silver

Jubilee Bridge and linking highway.

4.80 The Regeneration Strategy was underpinned by a number of community

consultation events held during late 2007 / early 2008 in Widnes and

Runcorn. In addition, in October 2007 a telephone survey of 200 local

businesses located within the Mersey Gateway Impact Area was

undertaken. The level of support emerging out of this consultation stage

was generally found to be strong; the business survey alone identified a

strong level of support for the Project, equating to 49% of businesses in

Widnes, and 44% in Runcorn. Only an 4% of respondents, a small

minority cited some opposition to the Project. Three key regeneration

objectives emerged out of this consultation exercise. These in turn

informed the Regeneration Strategy and can be summarised as follows:

Priority Regeneration Objective 1 – Image and Place-Making

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 56

4.81 This objective seeks to enhance the perception of both Widnes and

Runcorn to achieve the visionary aspirations held by Halton Borough

Council, and build upon the strong local sense of community and place to

deliver the considerable regeneration opportunities presented by the

Mersey Gateway Project.

Priority Regeneration Objective 2 – Accessibility and Movement

4.82 Increasing the catchment for labour, goods and markets represents a key

element of the Regeneration Strategy. The Project will facilitate more

reliable movements by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and

maximise opportunities for additional local connectivity and accessibility

for existing communities by promoting the ease of movement throughout

the area.

Priority Regeneration Objective 3 – Development and Economic

Prosperity

4.83 This objective expresses a clear steer towards the significant improvement

of commercial and residential accommodation within the local area to

meet market requirements and aspirations. This is coupled with a focus on

bringing back into use land for new development that is currently occupied

by highways infrastructure to be released through the completion of the

Mersey Gateway, with a particular focus on the re-use of contaminated

land within the West Bank area of Southern Widnes.

4.84 These priority objectives were identified so as to provide a visionary,

imaginative and deliverable set of solutions to the wide-ranging economic,

social and environmental problems identified within Halton, building

significantly upon the opportunities presented by the Mersey Gateway

Project.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 57

4.85 The Regeneration Strategy then went on to apply the identified objectives

to five impact areas, all of which are situated in close physical proximity to

the Mersey Gateway route corridor. These impact areas are:

1. West Bank, South Widnes;

2. Runcorn Old Town;

3. Astmoor Industrial Estate and Wigg Island;

4. Halton Lea; and

5. Rocksavage and Clifton.

4.86 A number of physical options prepared for each of these impact areas,

which were subject to two stages of consultation with members of the

public during February and March 2008. The options were also the subject

of a detailed Sustainability Appraisal.

4.87 The Regeneration Strategy was approved by Halton Borough Council

Executive Board in June 2008.

4.88 The Regeneration Strategy builds upon the principles set out in PPG4

‘Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms.’ This recognises

the close relationship between economic growth and a high-quality

environment, and encourages that these should be pursued together. It

recognises that industrial and commercial have always sought locational

advantages in response to various external factors; high priority is often

given by businesses to good access to transport infrastructure, including

the highway network.

Topic 16 - Local Development Framework and

Emerging Policies

4.89 Halton Borough Council is currently preparing a series of Local

Development Documents (LDDs) as part of its emerging Local

Development Framework (LDF). On adoption, these will replace the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 58

Council’s existing strategic and generic UDP policies. At present, all

existing UDP policies are saved for three years until April 2011.

4.90 The Council’s Local Development Scheme (LDS) 2007 establishes dates for

the preparation and adoption of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). Two key documents within

the Council’s emerging policy framework are the Southern Widnes SPD

(now renamed West Bank SPD) which sets out policies and proposals for

the comprehensive regeneration of the Southern Widnes Area (Policy RG1

in the UDP) and the Runcorn Town Centre SPD. The detail of both are set

out below:

1. West Bank SPD

4.91 The West bank SPD (formerly referred to as the Southern Widnes SPD)

refers for the main part to the area defined under UDP policy RG1.

4.92 The SPD has regard to both the requirements of the existing

neighbourhood and the new opportunities presented by the de-linking

element of the Project works (ie the physical process of removing

unnecessary pieces of highway infrastructure and thus the physical

creation of new land and development opportunities).

4.93 The document undertakes a spatial analysis of 5 separate “character

areas” within the overall SPD area, comprising Ashley Way, Hutchinson

Street, Waterloo Road, Catalyst and West Bank. Each enjoys a physical

proximity to the route of the Mersey Gateway as it passes through Widnes

and the SPD seeks to both capture and maximise the regeneration

benefits that may arise. It sets out the potential broad locations for new

housing, commercial, leisure and retail development and establishes a

policy framework and key design principles through which the new land

uses should be delivered.

2. Runcorn Town Centre SPD

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 59

4.94 The Runcorn Town Centre SPD focuses on the area immediately to the

south of SJB and its accompanying highway infrastructure. As a result of

the overall Project proposals it will be possible to remove infrastructure

that is excess to requirements, namely the ‘Runcorn Loops’ system and

the A556 flyover. This provides an opportunity to deliver key

redevelopment opportunities and reduce or remove physical constraints.

The SPD envisages the direct benefit of those physical works as being:

1. The creation of a new Station Gateway sub area, linking the station

with the town centre;

2. The rejoining of the canal system in the area, which is currently

restricted by the height of the A553 approach to SJB

4.95 The SPD divides the study area in nine sub areas and goes on to consider

the existing character and set out the opportunity for change.

4.96 Both SPD’s were subject to consultation in late 2008 and will proceed

towards adoption over the course of 2009. Both will be a material

consideration in the determination of planning and development proposals.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 60

5. PLANNING APPRAISAL EXERCISE

5.1 The approach that needs to be followed in any planning appraisal of the

Project is provided by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004. This states that if regard is to be had to the

development plan for the purpose of determination, then that

determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The courts have provided clarification as to how this requirement is to be

applied in practice, noting that it is not unusual for development plan

policies, particularly with regard to larger schemes, to ‘pull’ in different

directions; it goes on to conclude that a balance has to be made having

regard to factors such as the importance of the policies which are

complied with or are infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach.

The conclusion reached within case law is that a proposal has to be judged

against the development plan when considered as a whole; a proposal

does not have to accord with each and every policy therein to be

considered as being in ‘accordance’.

5.3 Adopting this approach therefore requires an assessment which

undertakes the following:

1. An examination of the extent to which the proposal is supported by

the provisions of the development plan. This is undertaken at

Section 6 of my evidence.

2. An appraisal of the benefits arising from the proposal which are

material and are thus to be weighed in any decision making

process. This is undertaken at Section 7.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 61

3. An examination of whether the proposal is in conflict with elements

of the development plan, and if so make an assessment of harm

arising from that conflict; this is undertaken at Section 8.

4. An overall assessment of the planning balance, weighing compliance

against harm.

This enables me to conclude on the planning balance and compliance with

the development plan, along with the other matters raised by the

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and those

matters relating to planning as raised by the Secretary of State for

Transport. This is set out at Section 9 before I provide an overall

summary at Section 10.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 62

6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPORT FOR THE

MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT

6.1 The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy as adopted

in September 2008 and the Halton UDP as adopted in April 2005. Direct

support for the new Mersey Crossing is included within both documents as

set out below:

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy 2021

6.2 The 2008 version of the RSS has taken a different approach to the

previous regional strategy documents in respect of major infrastructure

policy. The previous RSS (March 2003) at Policy T10 sought to both

establish the general policy approach to transport and traffic management

in the region and to then go on to individually identify within the policy

text those schemes which were considered to be of regional significance.

The Mersey Gateway Project was identified within that list, identifying it as

both in accord with the general policy and acknowledging it as an

individual scheme. The planning applications, submitted in May 2008,

were assessed against the provisions of this now superseded version of

RSS.

6.3 The current RSS however at Policy RT10 adopts a criteria based approach

which states that the general priorities for transport investment and

management will be determined in accord with:

1. The Regional Economic Strategy (2006);

2. The seven RSS transport objectives (RSS Chapter 8);

3. The RSS Spatial Principles as set out at policies DP1 to DP9

4. The regional spatial framework as set out at RDF1

5. The aims of the sub regional RSS chapter.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 63

6.4 The policy then goes on to confirm that the policy will be accompanied by

an Implementation Plan which will set out those schemes for which

funding has been provisionally allocated and those which are under

development. The Implementation Plan is not yet public but RSS at

paragraph 8.37 states that the schemes which will be cited in the

Implementation Plan will be based on published research work undertaken

by JMP and by Atkins.

6.5 If the Implementation Plan was publicly available, and included reference

to the Mersey Gateway, then it would be possible to show direct RSS

support for the Project works. In the current absence of an

Implementation Plan however I have considered the terms of policy RT10,

and whether it supports the provision of the Project works, from first

principles, undertaking assessment as follows:

1. an appraisal of the proposal against the widest RSS policy context

as set out at 6.3 above.

2. a review of the two research documents (JMP and Atkins) which are

to inform the Implementation Plan.

6.6 The findings of both strands of assessment are set out below:

1. Assessment against the principles of RSS policy RT10

6.7 An assessment of the Mersey Gateway Project against the specific

references with RT10 (i.e. the provisions of RES, RSS, the Spatial

Principles, and the sub regional framework) shows that the Project enjoys

wide ranging support across each of the policy criteria. A summary of the

findings of the assessment against the policy framework is set out tabular

form below:

Appraisal of MGP against Policy RT10

Document/Policy Test

as specified within

Policy Position Project Compliance or

otherwise

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 64

RT10

1. RES 1. RES identifies MGP as a

regional benefit.

The MGP is directly supported by

the RES.

2. RSS transport

objectives (RSS

Chapter 8

introduction)

1. Maintain existing transport

infrastructure in good

order.

MGP improves existing network

connections and enhances

resilience.

MGP allows for long term future

of SJB.

2. Improve journey time

reliability, tackle

congestion and

overcrowding within and

between City Regions

MGP and SJB would together

provide for better movement

both within the Liverpool City

Region and in terms of its wider

regional connections.

3. Secure a shift towards the

use of more sustainable

modes of transport.

The proposals for SJB will allow

for and encourage greater use

of public transport, cycling and

walking within and between

Halton and Widnes.

4. Secure safe and efficient

access between residential

areas and key destinations

(employment, schools,

shops and services).

The MGP, and in particular the

return of SJB to its local role

incorporating public transport,

walking and cycling, will better

link the two towns of Widnes

and Runcorn, allow for safer and

more efficient and reliable

access between the two. Key

destinations on either side of the

river in Halton will be better

accessible to all.

5. Improve surface access

and interchange

arrangements at

international, national and

regional gateways (e.g.

Liverpool Airport,

Manchester Airport,

mainline railway stations).

MGP would provide a robust

connection in the sub-regional

highway network, guaranteeing

journey time and route

resilience; it would materially

improve access arrangements to

the international, national and

regional gateways identified.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 65

6. Reduce the adverse

impacts of transport in

terms of safety hazards,

climate charge,

environmental

degradation, residential

amenity and social

exclusion.

MGP would directly address each

of these concerns:

- the existing use of SJB

represents a safety hazard;

MGP will directly address

the concerns.

- whilst there are some local

changes, the overall effect

of MGP is to deliver

improvements in local air

quality and noise standards,

delivering environmental

improvement and a net

overall improvement to

residential amenity.

- the return of SJB to a local

function materially improves

connectivity between

Widnes and Runcorn,

addressing concerns as to

social exclusion.

7. Integrate the management

and planning of transport

systems.

MGP, through its tolling regime,

allows for demand management

alongside the effective planning

of the system.

3. RSS Spatial

Principles DP1 –

DP9

DP1 – Key Principles which

underpin PSS and RTS

- promote sustainable

communities;

- promote sustainable

economic development;

- make the best use of

existing infrastructure;

- manage travel demand,

reduce the need to travel,

increase accessibility;

- marry opportunity and

need;

MGP and the associated works

to SJB will directly meet each of

these key principles, with the

exception of the reference to

rural issues which is not

relevant.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 66

- promote environmental

quality;

- mainstreaming rural

issues;

- reduce emissions and

adapt to climate change.

DP2 – promote sustainable

communities particularly by,

amongst others, fostering

sustainable relationships

between homes, workplaces

and other concentrations of

regularly used services and

facilities and reviving local

economies.

MGP and the associated works

to SJB will effectively promote a

more sustainable community

within Halton. The Sustainable

Transport Strategy will directly

promote more sustainable

relationships between all

elements of the community.

The regeneration benefits of the

proposals will serve as a boost

to the local economy and have a

beneficial effect on the local

community.

DP3 – promote sustainable

economic development and

close the gap in regional

economic performance.

MGP will serve as a boost to the

local economy, directly

delivering a number of new jobs

whilst having a catalytic effect

on the wider sub region. The

Sustainable Transport Strategy

will directly contribute to this

principle.

DP4 – with regard to

development, to make the

best use of existing resources

and infrastructure.

Not directly relevant to the MGP

in that it relates more to built

development rather than

infrastructure, identifying a

sequential approach to

development.

DP5 – Manage travel demand

reduce the need to travel and

increase accessibility,

encouraging a shift to more

sustainable modes of

transport and the provision of

safe and sustainable access

for all, particularly by public

transport, between homes and

MGP will manage travel demand

through tolling, it will increase

accessibility and through the

amendments to SJB will

encourage a shift to non-car

modes of transport, enhancing

access between Widnes and

Runcorn.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 67

employment, services and

facilities.

DP6 – Marry opportunity and

need – focus of investment

decisions on the linking of

areas of economic opportunity

with areas in need of

economic social and physical

restructuring and

regeneration.

Halton is a relatively poor

performer when assessed

against a range of social /

economic indices. The MGP

represents an opportunity to

deliver local economic

improvement alongside physical

regeneration to the direct

benefit of the wider community

DP7 – Promotion of

environmental quality and the

protection of air, coastal and

inland waters through,

amongst others:

- promoting good quality

design;

- reclamation of derelict

land;

- maximising regeneration

opportunities;

- managing traffic growth

and mitigating the effects

of road traffic on air

quality/noise/ health.

MGP has the potential to directly

meet a number of the criteria

identified in that it will:

- promote an iconic design for

the bridge which respects

and enhances its estuary

setting;

- allow for the reclamation of

surplus/derelict land;

- provide a catalyst for

regeneration through he

parallel planning strategies;

- manage the existing traffic

flows so as to achieve

overall net improvements in

noise/air quality and health.

The MGP in part however fails to

maintain the tranquillity of open

countryside in respect of its

effect on land at Wigg Island.

DP8 – Rural issues Not relevant to MGP.

DP9 – Reduce emissions and

adapt to climate change, in

particular having regard to the

need to achieve carbon and

emission reduction targets.

One area identified is the

need to take reduce traffic

MGP and the works to SJB will

directly promote walking, cycling

and public transport.

Effect on carbon emissions - tbc

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 68

growth, promote walking,

cycling and public transport.

4. RSS RDF1 Spatial

priorities

Identification of the spatial

priorities for development;

Widnes and Runcorn identified

as towns within the Liverpool

City Region, prioritised 3rd out

of 4 as locations for

development.

MGP will generate a need and

demand for development within

and around the centres of both

Widnes and Runcorn. In this

respect the effects of MGP would

be in accord with RDF1.

5. Sub regional chapter

11 – Liverpool City

Region

Policy LCR1 sets out the broad

criteria which should underpin

plans and strategies in the

Liverpool City Region. Those

relevant to the MGP comprise:

- support for interventions

which achieve an

improvement in the sub-

regional performance.

- promote economic

development, urban

renaissance and social

inclusion in the outer

parts of the City Region.

- improve the City Regions

internal and external

transport links in line with

the priorities set out in

RT10.

- support and develop the

role of Liverpool airport

and the Merseyside Ports.

MGP would positively meet each

of the relevant priority themes.

MGP is expected to assist in

delivering an improvement in

local economic performance,

which in turn will contribute to

the wider sub-region.

MGP will promote development,

act as a catalyst for urban

renaissance and assist in

delivering social inclusion within

Halton.

The MGP and the works to SJB

will directly improve the sub-

regional transport links.

The MGP will directly support

the development of the airport

and ports.

6.8 The assessment shows that the Project enjoys wide ranging support

across each of the policy criteria.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 69

2. Assessment against the Implementation Plan research

reports

6.9 In the absence of the Implementation Plan, I have undertaken an

assessment of the two research reports which the RSS confirms will inform

the Implementation Plan so as to understand how they assess the Project

works and thus the likelihood of the Project being included within the Plan.

The summary findings are set out below:

a) JMP Report

6.10 JMP Consulting was commissioned by the North West Regional Assembly

in February 2005 to develop a methodology for determining regional

priorities for transport investment in the North West (CD 117). The

objective was to develop a ranked set of project interventions to be

included in the Regional Transport Strategy. The methodology was to

have regard to the range of national, regional and sub regional policy

documents and strategies.

6.11 The published report sets out the methodology and goes on to apply the

methodology to the list of 73 regionally significant transport proposals.

6.12 The JMP report identifies the Mersey Gateway Project within its top

quartile of priority schemes both when all factors are equally weighted,

and when a weighting is applied to the assessment criteria;

b) Atkins Report

6.13 In September 2005 Atkins was commissioned by GONW to appraise and

prioritise c. 60 Local Authority and Highways Agency Major Schemes (CD

185). The study brief was to build on the JMP work detailed above and to

develop an appraisal framework which focussed on deliverability and value

for money.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 70

6.14 The exercise was the subject of widespread stakeholder consultation and

the report confirms at paragraph 5.1 that the results of the prioritisation

process have broad consensus amongst regional stakeholders. The

prioritisation placed the Mersey Gateway Project and Silver Jubilee Bridge

in the top quartile prioritisation category. The report concluded at

paragraph 5.2 that all such Q1 schemes are strongly consistent with policy

priorities.

3. Conclusion

6.15 It is my view therefore that the Project is supported by the provisions of

RSS policy RT10 as a priority transport investment project and that, on

the basis of the findings of the JMP and Atkins reports, that this will be

explicitly confirmed once the Implementation Plan is published.

Halton Unitary Development Plan

6.16 UDP Policy S14 (CD115) states that a new crossing of the River Mersey to

the east of Silver Jubilee Bridge will be promoted to relieve congestion on

the existing bridge as part of an integrated transport system for Halton

and the wider regional transport network. The accompanying plan (Map

2) shows an extract from the 2001 LTP which defined the two alternative

alignments, either west of Thermphos off Astmoor Junction or further east

off Central Expressway. Both alignments cross the Green Belt at Wigg

Island.

6.17 The works proposed by the Mersey Gateway Project incorporate the

provision of a new crossing located to the east of SJB, adopting the

Central Expressway extension and west of Thermphos options as shown

on UDP Map 2. This will relieve existing congestion on the SJB and

increase the opportunity for public transport, walking and cycling across

the River, thus contributing significantly to the delivery of an integrated

transport system for Halton. In addition the proposal will contribute to

wider regional transport network, delivering network resilience and

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 71

facilitating access within and beyond the sub region. The Project is thus

fully in accord with and therefore directly supported by the provisions of

UDP policy S.14.

6.18 On this basis it is concluded that the Mersey Gateway Project, in its

proposed form and location, is expressly supported by the development

plan.

6.19 The Project also enjoys support within non statutory and emerging

planning policy documentation as follows:

1. The Regional Economic Strategy (2006) (CD109) recognises the

benefits arising from the delivery of major transport infrastructure

investments within the region. The RES identifies the second

Mersey crossing as one such investment, with the benefits cited

including the relieving of congestion, support for two strategic

regional sites, improving reliability of access to Liverpool Airport and

improved linkages within the Liverpool City Region. The RES

identifies the second crossing amongst a number of regional

transport priorities, assisting in enhancing cross border economic

linkages.

2. Halton’s Local Transport Plan (CD117) identifies the Mersey

Gateway Project as a Priority 1 scheme, noting that it has the

benefit of achieving significant journey time savings for cross river

traffic and enabling the Silver Jubilee Bridge to cater for locally

sustainable travel.

6.20 Each of these policy documents which sit alongside and feed into the

development plan, further demonstrate the depth of policy support for the

Mersey Gateway Project.

6.21 It is also evident from the policy appraisal undertaken at section 4 that

aside from specific policies which support the Mersey Gateway Project,

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 72

there is a range of policies which are of general relevance and with which

the Project is also in accord. An assessment against these policies was

undertaken as part of the ES exercise which supported the application

submissions; for the purposes of the Inquiry the findings are summarised

on a topic basis below.

i) Surface water quality

6.22 The technical appraisal exercise undertaken as part of the application

exercise and explained within the evidence of Dr Keith Hendry concludes

that the Mersey Gateway Project will have no major effects upon surface

water quality of any watercourse. Whilst there is a level of impact arising

during construction, mitigation measures have been identified which

address the potential impacts which may arise and no significant residual

impacts have been identified. Monitoring of watercourses as secured via

planning conditions will take place before, during and after construction to

ensure that there will be no deterioration in water quality.

6.23 On this basis the proposal is in accord with the policy initiatives set out

within national policy and the development plan, in particular the specific

provisions of UDP Policy PR5.

ii) Contamination

6.24 The technical appraisal exercise undertaken as part of the application

exercise and within the evidence of Mr Nigel Cossons HBC/17/1P

acknowledges that the Project has the potential to cause contamination

effects during construction and operation, including water and ground

contamination. The evidence identifies that the project works may also

have an impact upon human health, in particular site visitors, workers and

local residents. It is recognised that remediation will be required as part of

the works to mitigate risks, and identifies appropriate measures; soils and

sediment will be managed through the Site Waste Management Plan. On

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 73

this basis the proposal is in accord with the provisions of national policy

and the development plan, in particular UDP Policy PR14.

iii) Groundwater

6.25 The technical assessment identifies that the Mersey Gateway Project will

potentially have a negative impact upon areas of groundwater within

Widnes and Runcorn during construction and operation, principally due to

the possibility of shallow groundwater being at risk of contamination by

migration and on-site contaminants. This is identified as representing a

temporary high-risk to groundwater sources within Runcorn and Widnes

but is capable of mitigation. The need for remedial measures is different

on either side of the River Mersey. Depending on the approach that is

adopted to mitigation of the existing issues associated with the ground

water some significant residual effects would remain. These will be

addressed by the wider Remediation Strategy developed and implemented

by Halton Borough Council.

iv) Hydrodynamics

6.26 The technical assessment undertaken as part of the application exercise

and explained within the evidence of Mr Paul Norton HBC/13/1P

demonstrates that a variety of different methods have been used to

identify predicted changes for the construction and operation of the New

Bridge. The temporary works associated with construction of the bridge

towers are expected to result in some localised changes with the study

area. Post construction, hydrodynamic conditions are expected to return

to present day conditions. In the case of both operation construction

phases, no detectable changes in hydrodynamic conditions were found

within the SPA downstream of Runcorn Gap. At operation, evidence

gathered as a result of the range of modelling and investigations carried

out confirms that there is no impact on the dynamics of the Estuary.

v) Navigation

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 74

6.27 The impact of the Mersey Gateway on the normal workings the Mersey

Estuary is minimal. The technical assessment undertaken as part of the

application exercise and described within the evidence of Mr Hunt

HBC/6/1P shows that there will be no significant impacts upon users of the

Mersey Estuary and other navigation corridors both during construction

and operation, with the required headroom and beams for the vessels

using then monitored.

vi) Terrestrial Ecology

6.28 The technical assessment undertaken as part of the application exercise

and considered within the evidence of Dr Gemmell HBC/15/1P shows that

construction use of the Mersey Gateway Bridge will have no significant

adverse effect on the three key habitats in the Mersey Estuary SPA; the

salt marshes, inter-tidal sands and mudflats and the rocky shires. There

will be no effects on the ecological integrity of the Mersey Estuary in terms

of bird habits and vegetation. Effects on the Upper SPA Mersey Estuary

will be minor and can be effectively mitigated. The effect on the St Helens

Canal Bank CWS can be reduced or mitigated satisfactorily and the

ecological integrities of the sites will not be significantly affected.

vii) Avian Ecology

6.29 The technical assessment undertaken as part of the application exercise

and explained within the evidence of Mr Paul Oldfield HBC/14/1P

concludes that there will be no effects on the important bird population of

the Mersey Estuary SPA as these do not use the upper Mersey Estuary

where the New Bridge will cross. The conclusion is drawn that

construction and use of the Project, given appropriate mitigation which is

feasible, will cause no significant harm to the biodiversity or integrity of

the Mersey Estuary SPA.

viii) Aquatic Ecology

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 75

6.30 The technical appraisal exercise which accompanied the application

submissions and which is carried forward within the evidence of Dr

Williams HBC/18/1P concludes that during construction the main factor

which would be likely to have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms was

underwater noise generated by pile driving. A number of fish species could

be affected by the generation of noise and for those in the immediate

vicinity of the piling, mortality is a possibility. Effective mitigation

measures proposed would be to constantly monitor noise levels during

construction, to select appropriate building materials/techniques to

minimise noise levels and to provide 'noise free' windows for fish

migration.

6.31 The disturbance of sediments, the potential release of contaminants and

the resulting potential impact on the aquatic flora an fauna within the

Estuary also has the potential to act negatively upon the aquatic ecology.

However, appropriate mitigation measures should minimise such impacts.

6.32 As the overall impact on macroinvertebrate populations of the Upper

Mersey Estuary is likely to be negligible, there is expected to be a

negligible reduction in prey availability for internationally important bird

populations within the SPA, Ramsar and SSSI downstream of the New

Bridge site.

6.33 Further monitoring is recommended pre, during and post construction to

ensure that the aquatic ecology of the Upper Mersey Estuary can be

assessed at all stages of the development. If there are any impacts due to

the development, this will increase the likelihood that they will be detected

rapidly and further mitigation measures can then be considered in a timely

manner.

6.34 In conclusion after mitigation the assessment concludes that the project

after mitigation will have:

1. no environmental effect with a significance above Low Significance.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 76

2. no adverse impact on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SSSI, SPA

or Ramsar Site

6.35 On this basis it is possible to conclude that the proposal is in accordance

with the provisions of both national guidance and the development plan as

it relates to such matters.

viii) Transportation

6.36 The project provides additional capacity in the highway networks. Whilst

it is clearly a project which supports the provision of public transport and

encourages modal shift by the application of tolls, the potential exists for

this additional capacity to encourage a greater number of car based

journeys with drivers choosing to use the route where previously they

would not have done so. Had there been an open ended potential

encouragement of private car journeys this might have been contrary to

one of the main thrusts of transportation policy as expressed in national

and development plan policy.

6.37 The modelling of the regional highway network and an assessment of the

effects of the Project works was undertaken within the Transportation

Assessment undertaken as part of the application submission and

subsequently carried forward within the Inquiry evidence presented by Mr

Alan Pauling HBC/8/1P. In summary the assessment finds as follows:

1. That in terms of area wide impacts, the effects of the Project is

not significant across the modelled area, ie it does not cause

widespread trip re-assignment nor does it induce large numbers of

additional trips across the wider sub regional study area;

2. That in terms of the traffic using the Mersey crossings at the

opening year of 2015 the effect of the Project will be to cause some

traffic to direct to other crossings and a greater proportion to either

change its travel destination or change its mode or trip frequency;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 77

3. Produce a small increase in cross Mersey trips when compared to a

no bridge or ‘do minimum’ situation. If there were no tolls however

this increase above a ‘do minimum’ situation would be much larger;

4. That in respect of vehicle types making a crossing at 2015 car

based trips are likely to be affected to a significantly greater extent

by the tolled facilities than either light or heavy goods vehicle trips.

By 2030 the deterrent effect of the toll on car journeys is likely to

have reduced significantly.

5. That in respect of journey purpose, analysis has been undertaken

on the basis of commuting trips and employers business trips. The

exercise finds that in 2015 the effect of the crossing being made

subject to tolls is that whilst some trips decrease, employers

business trips increase. At 2030, a similar pattern of results arise

whilst employers benefits again show a significant increase over

2015 levels.

6. That in respect of the time of day that crossings are made in 2015,

the impact is greater in the inter peak period with all except

employers business trips showing a reduction in crossing frequency.

Non work related trips are affected the most. In 2030 the impact

remains greater in the inter peak period, though much reduced from

2015.

6.38 The modelling exercise goes on to find that the benefits flowing out of the

scheme proposals are higher average speeds, generally shorter distances

between key destinations (e.g. M56/M62 junctions) and time savings

across a large number of key journeys. In terms of meeting the concerns

in respect of congestion presented by SJB, the assessment finds that there

are no significant disbenefits.

6.39 As well as providing for no encouragement to material additional car use,

the project will also meet the policy objectives (as set out in Policy T3) in

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 78

respect of investment in the regionally significant highway network and

the prioritisation of effective transport management.

6.40 The modelling exercise shows that up to 80% of traffic currently using

Silver Jubilee Bridge will transfer to the new bridge on opening. This

enables the reconfiguration of the SJB carriageway to provide for a

reduced highway capacity so as to cater for local traffic and public

transport whilst also making dedicated provision for pedestrians and

cyclists. In line with a key policy theme as contained with national policy

guidance and the development plan. In particular, it will directly assist in

delivering the integrated transport solution to travel within and between

the towns of Halton Borough which is cited within policy S14 as a key aim

of the second crossing proposals.

6.41 In addition a Sustainable Transport Strategy (STS) has been developed by

Halton Council in parallel with the Project. It was approved by Halton

Council in March 2009.

6.42 The STS provides the overarching integrated transport strategy within the

established Local Transport Plan process that is the setting for the Project.

The document establishes a key vision for sustainable travel choices within

Halton:

“To identify and promote a network of high quality, safe, affordable,

accessible and environmentally friendly travel measures for local residents,

businesses and visitors to Halton on which support the key objectives of

the LTP and the Project’.

6.43 This will be delivered as part of the Project, and both are inextricably

linked. The STS seeks to capture the opportunity that the Project will

present to deliver a sustainable transport network. In turn the tolls that

will be generated by the Project will support a direct financial contribution

of £0.5m per annum to deliver the requirements of the STS. The basis of

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 79

this and the mechanism for delivery is set out in the evidence of Mr

Nicholson HBC/2/1P and Mr Pauling HBC/8/1P.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 80

7. PLANNING BENEFITS

7.1 A key consideration in the planning judgement is an understanding of the

material benefits that will be delivered by the Mersey Gateway Project and

which need to be assessed in the overall balance. Having regard to the

Project as a whole the main benefits can be grouped and summarised as

follows:

1. Transportation related benefits, including the primary benefit of

addressing the congestion constraint presented by SJB, achieving

network resilience and the development of a more sustainable and

integrated transport network for Halton.

2. Regeneration related benefits, including the direct and indirect

employment benefits, the benefits to local and wider regional

economic performance, and the physical regeneration benefits.

3. Social related benefits, including the benefits to the local economy,

the direct benefit to the more disadvantaged wards within the

Borough and the general benefits of better integration between the

towns of Widnes and Runcorn.

4. The achievement of the project objectives set by Halton Council

for the project works.

7.2 Each of these matters is considered in full within the evidence of Mr

Pauling HBC/8/1P, Mr Russell HBC/9/1P, Dr Twigger Ross HBC/10/1P and

Mr Nicholson HBC/2/1P. For the purposes of my evidence I summarise

the key findings below.

Transportation benefits

7.3 The primary aim of the Project works, as set out within UDP policy, is to

relieve severe congestion on the Silver Jubilee Bridge which is considered

to be a constraint on the economic development of the region and which

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 81

severely restricts the development of an integrated transport strategy for

Halton. The Silver Jubilee Bridge represents the only opportunity for

traffic to cross the Mersey between Liverpool and Warrington and it

represents a key link in the local and regional transport network.

7.4 In the absence of any intervention, it is accepted that the constraints

presented by SJB can only get worse. There is no scope to increase

capacity on the SJB given the constraints presented by the structure and

its listed status. The physical fabric of the bridge is deteriorating with age

and the maintenance requirements are increasing year on year. Given the

lack of alternative routing and spare carriageway capacity, any

maintenance requirement or closure has an immediate effect in terms of

traffic congestion. The bridge represents the weakest link in the highway

network and significantly undermines the resilience of the network and its

ability to meet transportation requirements.

7.5 In addition there is no opportunity within the constraints presented by SJB

to make any improved provision for pedestrians, cyclists or public

transport. There is therefore no opportunity to advance the policy

aspiration of an integrated local transport system.

7.6 Against this background therefore I consider the transportation based

benefits of providing a second river crossing in the form of the Mersey

Gateway project to be wide ranging for the following reasons:

1. The proposal will deliver a high capacity dual carriageway river

crossing, compliant with current standards and linking directly into

the primary highway network. As set out in the evidence of Mr

Pauling the proposal will deliver direct and measurable benefits in

terms of journey times and journey time reliability for all journeys

which is considered to be a key Government target.

2. The proposal will remove a congestion bottleneck on a key regional

transport link; it will deliver network resilience and allow for more

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 82

efficient network performance both for Widnes, Runcorn and the

wider region. The benefits of the Project works will be felt region

wide.

3. In terms of the effect on traffic however the modelling assessment

finds that the Project has a primarily local impact in that it does not

induce significant re-assignment of traffic movements across a wide

area. The Transport economic benefits are however more

widespread. It does not cause significant change to traffic

movements across a wide area. The modelling finds that in the year

of opening (2015) some 20,000 daily trips are removed from SJB

and the Mersey Gateway. Whilst some do divert to other crossings,

some 12,000 do not cross the Mersey, choosing either to change

mode, destination or trip frequency. Network congestion and the

declining real cost of tolls reduce this effect by 2030 but the effect

demonstrates that the proposal is in line with transport policy

aspirations.

4. The modelling finds that the main reduction is on car trips rather

than either light or heavy goods trips. Given that the impact of the

Project is determined to a significant extent by the ability to pay

tolls and the perceived value of time, car trips engaged on

employers business show a positive response to the Project, whilst

commuter trips and inter-peak lower value trips reduce. This is

again an effect which is in line with transport policy aspirations.

5. The proposal will allow for the delinking of SJB and its

reconfiguration to fulfil a role focussed on providing for local cross

river traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Facilities will

be improved with dedicated provision for cyclists and pedestrians

along with the opportunity for enhanced level of public transport

service, with greater certainty on journey times and opportunity for

greater service frequency. This will make a significant contribution

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 83

to the development of a more integrated transport solution for

Halton.

6. The approved Sustainable Transport Strategy (STS) will ensure that

the specific benefits generated by the Project and particularly by the

changes to SJB will be captured and incorporated into the Borough

wide transport improvements. The Project directly supports the

delivery of the STS in three ways:

a. Through the provision of space on the relieved SJB for public

transport and alternative modes.

b. Through the journey time reliability that this relief will provide

to public transport operators.

c. Through providing a source of funding separate to the Councils

existing budget lines.

7.7 Each represents a direct transport benefit arising out of the Project, and

which for the most part are in direct accord with the provisions of national,

regional and local policy initiatives.

Regeneration Benefits

7.8 The development of the Mersey Gateway Project has the ability to deliver

a range of direct this and indirect regeneration benefits both within Halton

and across the region. The range of this regeneration benefit is economic

(in terms of regeneration and performance) and social as set out below.

1. Economic Regeneration Benefits

7.9 The economic benefits arising from the Project are set out in detail within

the evidence of Mr Russell but can be summarised as follows:

7.10 Mr Russell confirms that the project is expected to result in an economic

benefit in terms of GDP in the order of £311m (202 prices) in present

value terms (through a positive effect on business efficiency, investment,

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 84

innovation agglomeration benefits, labour market and competition

enhancement and wider domestic and international trade opportunities.

7.11 The Project is expected to have a positive effect within the identified

regional Regeneration Areas. In total some 4640 new local additional jobs

are expected to arise as a result of direct employment, inward investment

and regeneration effects. Once account is taken of the effects of induced

competition and displacement it is possible to conclude that a total of

1235 new jobs will be created by 2030.

7.12 The Project is expected to result in a range of positive impacts on

economic performance as a result of:

a) improvements in business efficiency through better transport

connections;

b) generation of higher rates f business investment and innovation,

building on project such as the 3MG Mersey Multimodal Gateway

which would potentially flourish with the provision of the Project

works;

c) the benefits of clusters and agglomerations;

d) enhancements to the operation of the labour market;

e) enhancements to the opportunity for trade, both domestic and

international.

Each represents an individual benefit but cumulatively the benefits would

represent a significant positive impact on employment and regional

productivity.

7.13 Each of the above would represent a materially significant and directly

attributable benefit of the Project works.

2. Physical Regeneration Benefits

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 85

The Project works will deliver physical regeneration benefits at two levels

as follows:

i) in terms of the new public realm planting and landscape provision

which will be delivered as part of the Project works. Whilst this is

primarily generated to mitigate the effects of the Project works, the

effect will be to the wider local environmental benefit.

ii) as a catalyst to the physical and land use changes identified within the

Regeneration Strategy and the emerging West bank SPD. The project

works will deliver the following:

a) In respect of West Bank (Southern Widnes), the creation of a

more sustainable pattern of movement based on a new hierarchy

with a range of new mixed tenure housing providing new family

and waterside housing, alongside a neighbourhood centre,

improved quality of employment provision and sustainable

transport links from Widnes Town Centre and Widnes waterfront.

b) In respect of the Old Town area of Runcorn the delivery of

physical change and regeneration arising from the downgrading of

SJB and the associated removal of redundant infrastructure.

c) The demolition of the A557 elevated highway and the part

demolition of the Queensway viaduct south of Ditton Junction

creating 9.6 ha of new land available for development. This will be

of direct benefit to the Southern Widnes Action Area.

d) The demolition of the A568 and the elevated southern link to the

Ditton Junction and the subsequent formation of potential

development land. This would begin to deliver the aspirations as

set out within the Regeneration Strategy and the emerging West

Bank SPD which seeks to re-brand West Bank as a high quality

gateway location, supporting high quality business, service and

retail space and providing improved access and public realm.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 86

e) The potential for delinking and the removal of the highway loops

within Runcorn Old Town as set out within the draft SPD, thus

allowing for a new gateway into the town centre and opening up

the Bridgewater Canal.

7.14 Each will deliver focussed enhancements to areas identified as being in

particular need of physical enhancement; a key aim of the Southern

Widnes Action Area identified at Policy RG1 is for the regeneration

initiative to deliver an improvement to the overall living and working

environment.

Social and Employment Benefits

7.15 The Mersey Gateway Project has the ability to deliver direct social benefits

to the people of Halton, ranging from increased employment opportunities

through to better access to community facilities and health benefits. The

detail of these social, community and employment benefits is set out in

detail in the evidence of Dr Twigger-Ross HBC//10/1P; the key findings

are summarised below:

1. During the construction phase the project will deliver the equivalent of

470 net additional ten year equivalent jobs; of these a significant

percentage are expected to be drawn from the local Halton area given

the match between skills, qualifications and training. Once a multiplier

is added for the indirect benefits (i.e. expenditure on food and drink,

leisure etc) then the number of expected jobs in the local area rises.

Given the high levels of unemployment within the areas closest to the

job opportunities, the benefit derived from the new jobs is considered

to be of high importance.

2. It is anticipated that local training initiatives and opportunities will be

provided for residents to address the skills gap and to provide

adequate and targeted training. This would potentially increase the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 87

proportion of local jobs secured and reduce levels of worklessness the

associated benefits of better health, higher incomes and reduced levels

of crime.

3. During the operation of the Project it is anticipated that there will be

both economic and social/health related benefits as follows:

a. created 98 direct job opportunities, with approximately 66% of

these, equating to 65 jobs) likely to be filled by local residents. A

large proportion of these will be associated with the toll collection

part of the operation which are located within the Riverside ward,

one of the most deprived in terms of unemployment. Whilst

geographical proximity does not guarantee that the opportunity

will be taken up, it does maximise the prospect.

b. the additional job benefits generated out of the inward

investment employment opportunities and those employment

benefits arising out of the regeneration initiatives.

c. overall improvements in air quality and noise levels brought

forward as part of the Project will deliver health related benefits.

d. The increase opportunities (through the improvements to SJB) to

make journeys on either foot or by bike as opposed to by car.

The local nature of journeys within Halton suggest that a

significant number of such journeys could be made, assuming a

realistic travel distance of up to 5km. Again the wards closest to

the SJB are within the worst 42% nationally when assessed

against health deprivation indices; consequently the potential

health benefits to residents within these wards will be of high

importance.

e. The assistance of the Project in the delivery of the aims and

objectives of the Sustainable Transport Strategy will be of further

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 88

direct benefit with particular relevance to areas of existing

deprivation.

f. The enhancement of public transport across SJB and the delivery

of robust and predictable journey timings will be of direct benefit

to access to education, retail and health facilities. Given the

nature of the borough and the split between Runcorn and Widnes

certain key community facilities (hospital, education

establishments, employment clusters, leisure facilities etc) lie

either north or south of the river.

7.16 The benefits are likely to be particularly valuable to deprived groups (such

as low income car drivers, disabled drivers, groups with no car access etc)

in tandem with the toll discount framework outlined by Mr Nicholson.

Project Objectives

7.17 As I explained above the Council has set seven primary objectives aims for

the Project. Mr Parr sets out in his evidence as to why those objectives

have been set and where they have been drawn from, Mr Nicholson

HBC/2/1P in his evidence demonstrates how the objectives will be

delivered. From this it can be seen that each has been addressed in that:

1. The Project works will directly address the congestion on the SJB,

remaining constraints presented by SJB and providing for

enhancements to local transport needs;

2. The Project will incorporate appropriate toll and user charges;

3. The Project will improve accessibility to the direct benefit of local and

regional economic growth;

4. The Project will have an overall net benefit on air quality;

5. The Project, as part of the improvements to SJB, will encourage the

increased use of cycling and walking;

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 89

6. The Project works as a whole will improve network resilence for

transport across the River Mersey.

7.18 Each of the objectives have clearly been met, which is in itself a robust

planning benefit.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 90

8. OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

8.1 Whilst the Mersey Gateway Project clearly enjoys direct development plan

policy support, there are elements of the Project works which may be

supported by other development plan policies which are of more general

application. This is inevitable given the scale of the Project and its wide

ranging effect and impact. Indeed case law has established that a

proposal does not need to comply with every element of the development

plan so as to be judged to be in accordance with it. A judgement is to be

made against the Plan as a whole, having full regard to those policies

which may pull in different directions.

8.2 It is necessary, therefore, to consider the degree of potential inconsistency

and understand the harm arising from any conflict. In this regard I have

undertaken a detailed appraisal of the proposal against the policy

framework and concluded that those areas where it may be consider on

first review that the development plan does not directly support the

Project works, or where policy conflict could be considered to arise,

comprise the following:

1) Conflict with Green Belt policy, in relation to the UDP Green Belt

designation at Astmoor Saltmarsh/Wigg Island.

2) Loss of ‘Greenspace’ as identified on the Proposals Map and Policy

GE6 at various locations along the route alignment, albeit with some

partial compensatory provision.

3) Loss of ‘Potential Greenspace’ as identified on the Proposals Map

and Policy GE7 at one location (Wigg Island) along the route

alignment.

4) Conflict with Action Area designations, as identified on the Proposals

Map and within Policies RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG4, primarily with

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 91

regard to the omission of ‘road infrastructure’ within the range of

uses identified as desirable within those Areas.

5) Partial but not overall conflict with air quality requirements as

expressed within RSS and the UDP.

6) Partial but not overall conflict with noise policy requirements as

expressed within RSS and the UDP.

7) Visual and landscape impact concerns arising in respect of land

benefiting from landscape designations, including Wigg Island and

Spike Island (policies GE6, GE23 and GE24) and the Mersey and

Canal corridors (GE29).

8) Potential conflict with matters of cultural heritage, listed buildings

and Conservation Areas.

8.3 The extent of conflict varies and in some instances is only in part rather

than as an overall effect of the scheme. However, to get a full

understanding of the scale of potential harm consideration of each area of

concern is undertaken below.

1. Green Belt

8.4 The proposed alignment crosses land at Astmoor Saltmarsh/Wigg Island

which is designated on the Halton UDP Proposals Map as Green Belt. An

extract from the UDP proposals map is set out below, with the Green Belt

boundary highlighted.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 92

8.5 The land forms a self contained and limited parcel of Green Belt, having an

area of 161 ha bounded by the Mersey Estuary to the north and the Ship

Canal to the south. The impact of the Project on the land is that the

highway decking would cross the land at a height of 24m, supported on

concrete piers which would be sited within the land designated as Green

Belt.

8.6 Having regard to the terms of Green Belt policy it is accepted that the

Project works would represent ‘inappropriate development’ within the

meaning of PPG2. It is acknowledged that this inappropriateness is by

definition harmful to the Green Belt. In addition, again having regard to

the provision of PPG2 and the development plan, the development can be

considered to be harmful to the Green Belt for the following reasons:

1) By the effect on Green Belt purposes.

2) By the effect on Green Belt openness.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 93

3) By the effect of the built development and the bridge deck on the

visual amenity of the Green Belt and particularly views both into and

from the Green Belt.

An assessment of the extent of the harm of each of these areas is

undertaken below:

Harm to Green Belt purposes

8.7 Having regard to the provisions of PPG2, and in particular the purposes of

Green Belt set out at paragraph 1.5, it can be concluded that the Project

causes encroachment of built development into the Green Belt (the bridge

piers) as well as indirectly causing urban sprawl (by introducing an urban

element into the Estuary gap) and arguably, causing the merging of towns

(by linking the towns physically). My assessment of the extent of the

harm for each is set out below.

a) The physical encroachment in the Green Belt caused by the Project,

namely the land taken up by the bridge piers, would constitute the

permanent loss of a ground area of approximately 0.12 ha within an

overall Green Belt parcel which has an area of 161 ha. This

proportional land take is in itself insignificant, and the ‘harm’ is

accordingly limited. As well as being limited, the encroachment is

finite. It would not lead to any further loss of Green Belt land and it

would not undermine the future function of the land as Green Belt.

As such, whilst I acknowledge that encroachment would occur, I

consider the extent of the harm associated with the encroachment

to be limited.

In addition the road deck oversails the Green Belt, which in turn

represents a form of suspended physical encroachment. This matter

is more of a visual impact consideration and is reviewed under the

assessment of visual Green Belt impact set out in paragraph 8.8

below.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 94

b) The second concern relates to urban sprawl. Whilst the proposal

could be said to introduce an urban element into the Estuary setting

and the open Green Belt at Wigg Island, any potential sprawl is

limited only to the linear form of the bridge structure as it passes

over the Green Belt. The Project works will not cause urban sprawl

in the traditional sense of overspill i.e. development beyond the

existing built up area and urban boundaries. Furthermore, any

secondary urban growth and economic development generated by

the catalytic effects of the Project can be readily accommodated

within the towns of Widnes and Runcorn; the regeneration effects of

the Project will not therefore cause urban sprawl to the detriment of

Green Belt land.

Any harm caused to that Green Belt purpose which seeks to limit

urban sprawl is therefore minimal and wholly contained to the

effects of the new bridge.

c) With regard to the merging of towns it could be said that the

establishment of a physical crossing between Widnes and Runcorn,

which will cause an additional linking of the two towns, could in turn

could be described as promoting merging. However in reality this

linkage or merging is already in existence in the form of SJB and the

Aethelfleda a railway bridge, and it is inevitable if the policy

requirement for a second road crossing of the river is to be

achieved. As with the concern with urban sprawl, any merging will

be limited to the linear form of the bridge structure and will not lead

to any additional impact. The presence of the River Mersey ensures

that there can in reality be no material merging of the two towns,

the Green Belt at Wigg Island (which performs a separating function

but one which is ancillary to the role of the River Mersey in this

respect) will remain intact and capable of performing its existing

function.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 95

On this basis it is considered that any harm caused to that purpose

which seeks to avoid the merging of towns is minimal and wholly

contained to the effects of the new bridge structure.

Harm to Green Belt Openness

8.8 The Green Belt at Astmoor Saltmarsh/Wigg Island comprises a discrete

parcel of land which is open within itself but borders onto areas of built

development. It is accepted that there will be some impact on the

perception of the openness of the Green Belt parcel. Mr Beswick in his

evidence acknowledges that the bridge structures would compromise the

‘openness’ of the linear estuary margins. In reality, level of impact is

limited in extent and ground cover. In addition, the bridge deck is

elevated at height of between 20, and 23m, ensuring that the perception

of openness to those at ground level would be largely unaffected.

8.9 Therefore whilst there will be the addition of some physical structures

within the green Belt, and thus on accompanying loss of ‘openess’, this

loss is limited. From outside on the impressionof openness, whilst from

inside the Greent belt the land will remain open in terms of look and feel.

Effect on Green Belt visual amenity

8.10 A full assessment of the impact of the Project works on the visual amenity

of the Green Belt was undertaken as part of the Environmental

Assessment and is set out within the evidence presented by Mr Beswick.

The assessment process as described within the evidence shows that an

appraisal of impact was undertaken at three levels of visual influence

(local, intermediate and wider), it assessed both landscape and visual

effects and it had with regard to both day and night-time impacts. The

assessment is therefore comprehensive and robust.

8.11 The evidence of Mr Beswick concludes with particular regard to the

landscape and visual impacts on the Green Belt as follows:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 96

a. in landscape terms the New bridge could be regarded as either an

impressive structure or as an intrusive feature. The physical impacts are

confirmed to those locations where the piers are sited, whereas the deck,

is due to its height, is removed as an impact. The magnitude of effect is

therefore assessed as low adverse, the sensitivity of the landscape as

moderate given its physical scale, and the resulting significance is judged

to be low negative.

b. In visual terms the evidence finds that the potential visual effects of

the structure are reduced by the quality of design and the lightness of

structure. The sensitivity of design reduces the potential for the New

Bridge to be an imposition, leading to the magnitude of the effect to be

low adverse and the significance of effect being moderate negative, new

structure reduces the potential impact, resulting in a view that even if

viewed negatively, that the significance effect of harm is one of low

negative.

8.12 The assessment concludes in respect of the effect on Green Belt therefore

that the proposals would result in some adverse landscape and visual

impacts on the Green Belt.

8.13 It is acknowledged by Mr Beswick therefore that the general views of the

bridge structure cannot be wholly mitigated and it is accepted that the

project would have some impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt.

In seeking to understand the harm associated with this impact, an

assessment against those factors which are identified at paragraph 3.15

within PPG2 (and at Policy GE1(2) of the UDP) as being relevant to any

assessment of visual detriment (i.e. siting, materials and design) shows

the following:

a) The siting of the bridge deck as it passes over Wigg Island is at a

level of between 20m and c 24m above ground rising to a height of

24m at Astmoor junction; as such the open views at ground level

will not be interrupted by the road decking. The siting of the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 97

support pillars within the Green Belt cannot be avoided, but visual

harm caused by those piers can be mitigated through appropriate

structure planting.

b) The materials of the bridge will, when finalised, respect the wider

Estuary setting; the Design and Access Statement CD 6

accompanying the planning applications sets out how this wider

philosophy has been captured within reference Design scheme,

explaining the approach that will be adopted in respect of pattern,

texture, colour, lighting and shadow; and

c) The Design and Access Statement also explains how the design of

the bridge structure has been guided by a need to achieve lightness

and elegance, marrying art and science, form and function so as to

provide a simple and legible design. That Statement sets out how

bridges are a unique component of the built environment which,

when designed with a simplicity and efficiency, are able to generate

broad popular appeal and readily function as landmark and

emblematic structures. The intention with the Project, and in

particular the main span crossing the River Mersey is to achieve

both refinement and drama, delivering a design which comes to

represent a civic and regional landmark and an icon for Halton and

the north west.

8.14 The validity of this conclusion in respect of the bridge design was

reinforced by the comments of CABE in their response to the application

submission. In expressing their support for the lightness and care applied

to the detailed bridge design, the CABE response concludes that:

“the slender cross section, the dynamic cable stayed construction and the

fine design of the two decks produces an elegant bridge design”.

8.15 When assessed against each of the PPG2 points therefore it can be seen

that every regard has been had to minimising the potential impact on

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 98

visual amenity. Nevertheless for the purposes of assessment against

Green Belt policy it is accepted that the current visual amenity of the

Green Belt at Wigg Island would certainly change and could be considered

to be harmed. In my view however the extent of that harm is mitigated

by the factors set out above.

Very special circumstances and development plan support

8.16 PPG2 and development plan Green Belt policy contains no general

prohibition of development in the Green Belt, providing instead that

planning permission for inappropriate development may be granted but

only when very special circumstances can be shown to exist. Those very

special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of

inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighted by other

considerations. Taking this test forward therefore I have assessed the

impact of the proposal on the Green Belt on Wigg Island and in respect of

harm it is my conclusion as follows:

8.17 With respect to harm:

1. there is by definition harm by reason of the inappropriateness of the

proposed use;

2. there is harm to the purposes of Green Belt although this harm is in

reality limited to a concern with encroachment

3. there is harm to the attribute of openness, although the extent of

this harm is limited; and

4. there is harm to visual amenity, although the harm is to an extent

mitigated by matters of siting, materials and design.

8.18 With regard whether there are other considerations present which

outweigh these concerns, and are thus capable of constituting the

necessary very special circumstances my conclusions are twofold.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 99

1. It is evident that the development plan actively requires the

provision of a new crossing in the plan period. The two route options

set out within the development plan both entail utilising land within

and passing over the Green Belt at Wigg Island; the proposal adopts

one of the two development plan options. The decision to include

the bridge and the identified alignments within the development

plan was taken in the context of Green Belt policy. The underlying

development plan assumption therefore is one that Green Belt harm

will arise if the bridge is to be developed.

Section 38(6) provides statutory weight to this development plan

position. It is my view that the development plan requirement for

the provision of the crossing in the location as proposed is a

consideration capable of amounting to the necessary very special

circumstances.

2. The scheme delivers a range of transportation, regeneration, social

and strategic benefits as set out at section 7 of my evidence, all of

which are material considerations and can be ascribed significant

weight. It is my view that these considerations alone are of

sufficient weight to amount to the necessary very special

circumstances.

8.19 On this basis therefore it is my conclusion that the identified harm is

outweighed by matters of development plan compliance and the delivery

of material benefit and that individually and cumulatively these

considerations amount to very special circumstances which clearly

outweigh the harm to openness and any other harm sufficient to allow for

inappropriate development in the green belt. As such planning permission

can be granted consistent with PPG2.

2. Conflict with greenspace designation (Policy GE6)

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 100

8.20 The Mersey Gateway Project results in the loss of designated greenspace

at St Michael’s Golf Course (to accommodate the main toll plaza

infrastructure), and at Widnes Warth salt marsh (to accommodate bridge

piers and construction areas). In addition there are a number of smaller

areas within Area C (the Freight Line to St Helens Canal section), Area F

(and Bridgewater Junction) and Area G (along Central Expressway) to

accommodate road infrastructure. UDP policy GE6 states that

development of greenspace will not be permitted unless it is ancillary to

the enjoyment of the greenspace; exceptions are allowed where the

development would fund improvements to the overall value of the

greenspace, or make compensatory provision. The Project involves the

loss of greenspace to a use which is not ancillary to enjoyment of

greenspace, and for the main part makes no compensatory provision (with

the exception of the exchange land which is the subject of the S.19

certificate application detailed above). On this basis a conflict arises with

policy GE6 and it is necessary therefore to review the scale of that conflict

and the harm arising from it. An assessment of the Greenspace loss is

undertaken below.

i) St. Michaels Golf Course

8.21 St Michaels Golf Course, a municipal 18 hole facility, is currently closed to

any public access due to chronic ground contamination. The scope of this

contamination is set out in the relevant chapter of the Environmental

Statement. The course has been closed since 2004 and whilst there is an

expressed desire to reinstate the use, there are no specific proposals nor

funding sources identified for its remediation and reopening.

8.22 The Mersey Gateway Project would affect the greenspace in two ways:

1. It would have a temporary effect in that 7.72 ha would be utilised

for construction compound/storage use for the construction period

of approximately 40 months, with reinstatement thereafter.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 101

2. It would have a permanent effect in that 2.4 ha would be lost to the

development of the highway infrastructure and main toll plaza.

8.23 The temporary loss is of limited relevance in that the Project would restore

much of the land to its open state after the close of construction. The

whole golf course greenspace is currently closed to all public access with

no timetable for its restoration; there is no suggestion that it is to be

restored and open to the public before the end of the construction period.

Limited harm would therefore arise.

8.24 The permanent loss of 2.4 ha would impact on the overall quantum of

greenspace that is currently designated (albeit not capable of being used).

However, this loss is minor in the scale of this part of greenspace as a

whole. More importantly, the loss would not prejudice the ability of the

land to support a replacement, reconfigured 18 hole golf course at some

future date.

8.25 On this basis the conflict with policy GE6 caused by the loss of land at St

Michaels Golf Course is acknowledged but the harm is considered to be

limited.

ii) Widnes Warth Salt Marsh

8.26 Widnes Warth lies on the northern edge of the estuary. The project

causes the physical loss of 0.14ha of land through the development of the

supporting piers; as with St. Michaels Golf Course above, it is

acknowledged that the development is inappropriate within the

greenspace, that no compensatory provision is proposed, and that as such

a conflict with Policy GE6 arises. A secondary impact is a temporary loss

of 6.23ha to provide a compound for construction works.

8.27 The loss of land to the construction area is significant in size. However, it

is temporary and as such the effect will be time limited and the land will

be restored post construction. Therefore whilst some conflict with policy

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 102

GE6 arises, the impact is temporary and restoration will occur post

construction.

8.28 The land that would be lost permanently is clearly limited (0.14 ha) and

would not constitute any form of precedent nor lead to any further loss of

greenspace. The siting of the piers within the greenspace will not render

the greenspace incapable of use, nor undermine its ongoing status as

greenspace. In addition the planting and landscape proposals that will be

brought forward will seek both to mitigate the effects of the physical

works as well as providing enhancement to the greenspace as a whole.

Whilst it is acknowledged therefore that a conflict with policy GE6 arises,

the harm arising is considered to be limited.

iii) Miscellaneous Greenspace Parcels

8.29 Three small greenspaces within Area C (Freight Line to St Helens Canal),

Area F (Bridgewater Junction) and Area G (Central Expressway) will be

permanently lost to the Project. Whilst the areas are designated as

greenspaces, they are small fragments of land mainly comprising highway

embankment or verge (all less than 0.1 ha) and their importance in the

wider context is adjudged to be low within the ES appraisal. One of the

areas would be the subject of compensatory provision under the

procedures. This notwithstanding the loss of the space represents a

conflict with greenspace policy and harm, albeit minimal, is acknowledged

to arise.

3) Conflict with ‘Proposed Greenspace’ designation (Policy GE7)

8.30 The Project works cross an area of land at Wigg Island which is identified

as a Proposed Greenspace allocation. Whilst Policy GE7 of the UDP

identifies the land, it does not go on to specify any development restraint.

However, for the purposes of my evidence, I have adopted the policy

approach and tests as set out within Policy GE6. My conclusions on this

basis are as follows:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 103

1. The development within the proposed greenspace solely comprises

the support pier structures. The loss of land is minimal, amounting

to approximately 0.12 ha.

2. The landscape proposals which will be brought forward to screen the

built infrastructure will have a beneficial effect on the visual amenity

of this space; and

3. The proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the space

to function as greenspace if the potential designation is to be carried

forward.

8.31 On this basis therefore whilst a conflict with the broad greenspace policies

may be concluded I consider the extent of this harm to be limited.

4) Conflict with ‘Action Area’ designation

8.32 The Project alignment passes through four areas identified within UDP as

Action Areas and designated on the Proposals Map. These comprise:

1. Southern Widnes Action Areas (Policy RG1)

2. Central Widnes Action Areas (Policy RG2)

3. Widnes Waterfront – Action Area (Policy RG3)

4. Castlefields and Norton Priory Action Area (Policy RG6)

8.33 Each policy cites a list of those land uses which would be considered to be

appropriate within the Action Areas. Whilst in each instance the list does

not include major infrastructure works such as the those proposed as part

of the Project, the areas were designated in full knowledge that the Plan

also sought the delivery of the Mersey Gateway Project and that the

routing would inevitably affect those areas ‘designations’. However, whilst

there is no suggestion that the list of appropriate land uses in exhaustive,

the Project proposals are not explicitly identified and it could be concluded

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 104

that a potential policy conflict arises, to a greater or lesser extent, across

each of the areas. On a precautionary or worst case basis is therefore the

extent of this potential conflict is set out below.

Action Area 1 – Southern Widnes Action Area

8.34 UDP policy RG1 relates to the South Widnes Action Area which focuses on

land around the old Victorian heart of Widnes and has a designated area

of 59.8 ha. The text describes the area as being in need of investment in

its social and physical environments, with particular need for investment in

the housing stock, redevelopment of derelict and contaminated sites and

improvement to the overall living and working environment. The Mersey

Gateway Project would cut across the northern boundary of the Area,

resulting in the demolition of some existing industrial units, the removal of

a scrap metal business and the subsequent take up of a total of c. 31.5 ha

of ‘Action Area’ land.

8.35 The UDP identifies a range of land uses which are considered to be

acceptable within the Action Area. The list does not include major

transport infrastructure as an acceptable use, although there is no

suggestion that other uses will not be acceptable. In assessing the

acceptability of any use which is not included in the policy list therefore it

would seem appropriate to undertake an assessment of that use against

the wider Action Area policy aims, thus informing an assessment of

acceptability. Having undertaken this exercise, there are a number of

material considerations which I set out below:

1. The direct land take caused by the Project is in the order of 31.5ha;

however, the demolition of existing highway associated with the

Widnes de-linking works will create 9.6ha of new land within the

Action Area which would be capable of being put to viable use. This

reduces the land take to a net figure of 21.9 ha, out of a total land

area within the Action Area of 59.8 ha.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 105

2. The route alignment (and thus the land take) runs along the

northern boundary of the Action Area designation. As such the bulk

of the Action Area is left intact as a single discrete area capable of

achieving the Action Area aspirations as set out within Policy RG1.

3. The land which is to be taken by the line of Mersey Gateway Project

will specifically remove amongst other uses, a large scrap metal

dealership business. The use is a long-standing but wholly

inappropriate bad neighbour type use which has a significant

detrimental effect on the environment of the immediate

neighbourhood. Its removal as a result of the Project will be of

direct environmental and social benefit to the Southern Widnes

Action Area.

4. The Regeneration Strategy as approved in June 2008 and the

ensuing West bank SPD, as due to be adopted in late 2008, focuses

attention on the Southern Widnes area. The Strategy and emerging

SPD has full regard to the presence of the Mersey Gateway Project

seeks to capture and maximise the catalytic effect of the bridge.

5. The landscape and public realm works which accompanying the

application will deliver significant environmental improvements, and

will seek to establish the area as an appropriate gateway to Widnes.

This is key aspiration of the Action Area policy.

8.36 It is my view that each element will assist in the delivery of the wider

policy aspirations and each has the effect of mitigating the loss of land

from the Action Area designation. The harm to the policy designation is

therefore considered to be limited.

Action Area 2 – Central Widnes

8.37 As with Area 1, UDP policy RG2 identifies the Central Widnes Action Area

alongside a series of land uses which are considered to be acceptable

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 106

within the Area Action. Whilst no provision is made for transport

infrastructure, the list is not exhaustive and there is no suggestion that

other uses should no be allowed.

8.38 The land take caused by the Project however is only in the order of 0.55ha

on the very southern boundary of the Action Area designation. The land

take is minimal and there would be no effect at all on the ability of the

wider Action Area to meet the policy aspirations. On this basis, it is my

view that the extent of policy conflict is minimal.

Action Area 3 – Widnes Waterfront

8.39 UPD policy Policy RG3 identifies that extent of the Widnes Waterfront

Action Area and, as in RG1 and RG2, confirms the range of land uses that

are considered to be appropriate within the Action Area. Transport

infrastructure is not included within the list. However, unlike others,

policy RG3 does acknowledge the Mersey Gateway Project, stating that

development within the Action Area should not prejudice the objective of

securing a second Mersey crossing.

8.40 The land take caused by the Project is minor, amounting to less than 1ha

at the very western end of the Action Area designation and there would be

no effect at all on the ability of the Action Area to meet policy aspirations.

Given this, and the acknowledgment within the policy prioritising the

Project, it is my view that the extent of any policy conflict is not

significant.

Action Area 6 – Castlefield and Northern Priory

8.41 UDP policy RG6 identifies a limited range of uses which are to be

promoted within this Action Area. As with RG2 and 3 however, the land

take caused by the Project is minimal, amounting to 0.7 ha at its western

boundary. As with the Central Widnes Action Area. As with the Central

Widnes Action Area there could be no effect on the ability to the Action

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 107

Area to meet policy aspirations, and it is my view that the extent of any

policy conflict is insignificant.

Summary of respect of Regeneration Action Area

8.42 Overall therefore the primary impact is in respect of the Action Area

designations is in respect of Policy RG1 and Southern Widnes; the impact

on the other Action Areas is material but not significant. In respect of

Southern Widnes, it is acknowledged that the land take is significant;

however the loss is inevitable if the Project is to be delivered. The design

of the works has sought to minimise impact and the benefits delivered by

the Project, in terms of environmental improvement and public realm

upgrading would deliver key policy aspirations for the area. In addition

the Regeneration Strategy and the emerging West Bank SPD has had full

regard to the requirements of the Project and seeks to capture the

catalytic economic social and public realm benefit of the works. In overall

terms therefore the Project delivers key elements of the policy which

serves to mitigate the extent of policy conflict.

5. Conflict with air quality policy requirements (Policy PR1 and

TP19)

8.43 Policy EQ2 within RSS sets out a general aspiration to improve air quality

in the region. Policy PR1 within the UDP develops this further, stating that

development will not be permitted where it is likely to have an

“unacceptable effect” on air quality, having regard to

i) the effect on the amenity of the local environment;

ii) on public health;

iii) on air quality standards;

iv) on investment confidence.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 108

8.44 The policy requires that an air quality assessment is undertaken in respect

of those developments which have the potential to pollute. The

supporting text to the policy identifies unacceptable levels of emissions are

those in excess of levels set by regulations authorities.

8.45 In accordance with the policy a full assessment of the effect of the Project

works on air quality was undertaken as part of the ES exercise and the

subsequent addendum which accompanied the application. The

assessment undertakes an assessment of the overall effect of the scheme

and goes on to assess in detail where there are positive and negative

effects arising. The work undertake in support of the application has been

updated where appropriate as set out in the evidence as presented by Ms

Brown.

8.46 The evidence considers a number of separate locations along the Project

route in respect of levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Particulate Matter

(PM10), carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. The first assessment year

is at 2015 and the assessment is undertaken on a ‘do minimum’ scenario

(i.e. no Project) and a ‘do something’ scenario (i.e. with the Project in

place).

8.47 The evidence concludes as follows:

1. That in respect of the construction stage, the residual effects of all

construction activities including construction vehicle movements are

considered to be low at most sensitive receptors.

2. That in respect of local air quality during operations, an assessment

of the Project against the Air Quality Strategy objectives for the key

pollutants NO2 and PM10 concludes that all concentrations within the air

quality study area will be met at the 2015 year of opening. The one

exception is Warrington town centre, where an excess of annual mean

NO2 concentrations (when assessed against AQS standards) are predicted

to occur either with or without the Project in place. The predictions do

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 109

however indicate small improvements in air quality concentrations within

the Warrington Air Quality Management Zone as a result of the Project.

There is clear evidence of positive local change, in particular around

the SJB where significant positive reductions in NO2 and PM10 occur

due to the reductions in traffic numbers. Where there is a

theoretical decrease in air quality, such as at Central Expressway

where low significant negative increases in concentrations of NO2

and PM10 are predicted, the likely concentrations are well below the

Air Quality Strategy objectives.

The evidence finds that overall, the predicted reductions in air

quality concentrations close to SJB are greater that the increase

concentrations at receptors close to Central Expressway. Overall

therefore the Project works deliver a net benefit in local air quality.

3. That in respect of regional air quality the evidence shows both at the

year of opening in 2015 and at the design year of 2030 that there

will be a reduction in NO2 and PM10 and CO2 emissions.

8.48 On this basis therefore it can be concluded that the proposal is in accord

with the provisions of PPS23. Similarly it is evident that the proposals

raise no conflict with the provisions of UDP Policy PR1, which restricts

development where it is likely to have an acceptable effect on ait quality,

nor with UDP policy TP19, which relates only to areas where air quality is

shown to be poor.

6. Conflict with noise policy requirements (Policy PR2)

8.49 Policy PR2 within the UDP states that development will not be permitted

for any new noise source which is likely to cause a significant increase

ambient noise levels, for either day or night time conditions, particularly in

respect of residential or other noise sensitive uses.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 110

8.50 A full noise assessment of the Project works was undertaken as part of the

applicant on the same basis as the air quality exercise above, namely an

examination of both baseline and future conditions in a ‘do minimum’ and

‘do something’ scenario and having regard to both construction and

operational conditions. The assessment shows that there are positives

and negatives, with a reduction in noise levels in certain locations

(primarily around SJB) alongside increases elsewhere (mainly adjacent to

Central Expressway). The work undertaken in support of the application

has subsequently been taken forward and expanded within the evidence of

Mr Freeborn.

8.51 The evidence concludes as follows::

1. That during the construction phase there will be some low to

moderate negative effects on residential areas at Central

Expressway, Halton Brow and Western Link, and high negative

impact on open space at Wigg Island. The effect is temporary for

the duration of the construction period.

2. Once operational, the Project works will cause an increase in noise

for 65% of affected dwellings; 35% will experience a reduction in

noise. This contrasts with the do nothing situation (i.e. where none

of the project works are brought forward) where 100% of affected

dwellings will experience an increase in noise due to growth in traffic

volumes.

3. The reductions in noise are shown to be significant in a number of

locations (i.e. a change of over 3dB(A) which is identified on the

minimum perceptible change).

4. The expected increases in exposure to noise are for the most part

under the 3dB(A) figure, with the exception of one location at

Astmoor.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 111

5. Along the Central Expressway the majority of residential areas will

have similar noise levels with the Project in 2030 when compared to

those without the Project in 2030, due in part to the mitigating

effects of the proposed noise barriers.

8.52 The assessment has also had regard to the Noise Insulation Regulations

(1975) in respect of dwellings which could be potentially eligible for noise

insulation. The evidence of Mr Freeborn concludes that just 22 out of a

total of 25,000 dwellings could be eligible for an offer of sound insulation

due to the operation of the road. Those properties are situated near to

Halton Brow, Logde Lane and the southern part of Central Expressway.

8.53 The UDP policy test as set out at Policy PR2 seeks to resist ‘significant

increases’ in noise levels; having regard to the evidence brought forward

by Mr Freeborn it is considered that the minor and limited negative effects

are not considered to represent ‘significant increases’ in noise levels and

as such no direct conflict with the policy test would arise.

8.54 The main area of concern in respect of the provisions of development plan

policy in respect of noise is mainly limited to the effect of operational

traffic noise on Wigg Island. This harm is significant, but limited in scope;

when set against the overall reduction in terms of the total number of

people likely to be affected by road traffic noise from the road operation,

then it is possible to conclude that the overall conflict with policy is

limited.

7. Effect on Landscape and Visual Amenity

8.55 The Project works pass across, or propose built development, within areas

that are considered to be of landscape value, namely Widnes North, the

Mersey Estuary, Wigg Island and individual elements including the canal

infrastructure.

8.56 The potential impacts of the Project works have been assessed in full as

part of the application process and have been considered further in the

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 112

evidence of Mr Beswick. As a baseline to the assessment full regard has

been had to the following:

a) the quality of the design of the Project works as set out in the

Reference Design, the slenderness of the structure and the lightness

and openness of the design solution which all contribute to a

reduction in impact.

b) the height that the New bridge deck passes over the sensitive areas,

ensuring that the openness, landscape value and integrity of the

space is maintained.

c) the ability of the scale of the landscape in the vicinity of the Estuary

to absorb the New Bridge structure, and the appropriateness of the

structure within its setting.

d) the beneficial effect of appropriate structural planting in those areas

where the Project works take up groundspace, primarily in the form

of the support piers.

8.57 Taking these matters into account the evidence concludes that whilst the

Project works may generate an element of landscape and visual impacts,

those impacts would be limited and localised and the principle aims of the

landscape designation policies would not be materially prejudiced.

8. Conflict with Heritage Policies

8.58 The alignment of the Mersey Gateway Project has the potential to affect a

broad range of heritage receptors. RSS policy provides an overarching

policy requirement protection the character and setting of such receptors

whilst the UDP at policy BE4 to BE15 articulates the need to protect

schedule monuments, sites archaeological importance, and the character

and setting of listed buildings, Conservation Areas and structures of local

architectural and historic interest.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 113

8.59 An appraisal exercise was undertaken as part of both the Environmental

Statement which accompanied the planning submission. In response to

the application proposals English Heritage commented as follows:

“I can confirm that the bridge itself and the majority of the associated

road improvements which will be subject to related Planning and Listed

Building applications do not in our opinion affect the setting of listed

buildings that come within our remit as a statutory consultee (Grade 1 or

Grade II*).

8.60 The evidence of Mr BeswickHBC/7/1P has carried forward the work

undertaken for the ES. The evidence assesses the importance of the

receptor and the magnitude of any effect, allowing a professional

judgement to be made as to significant of impact. The exercise was done

along the length of the Project, adopting the Construction Area sub

division for ease of reference and in respect of both construction and

operational stages. Finally regard is had to the effects of landscape

mitigation.

8.61 The assessment process is summarised within section 11 of Mr Beswick's

evidence. It finds that whilst the majority of the potential receptors can

be considered to be of moderate or high importance, the magnitude of the

effect is considered to be mainly low, resulting in an assessment of the

effect being mainly not significant. For impacts that were identified as

‘low significance’, however the assessment concludes that once regard is

had to the particular circumstances of the proposal the effects are not

materially significant and the Project works are in accordance with the

Provision of the development plan.

Summary

8.62 Having regard to the above it is my view is that in respect of the overall

Project works, harm to development plan policy may be said to arise as

follows:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 114

1. Green Belt policy i. Harm by definition by way of

inappropriateness.

ii. Limited harm to Green Belt

purposes.

iii. Limited harm to Green Belt

openness.

iv. Limited harm to visual

amenity.

v. Significant other

considerations which outweigh

harm and which constitute

necessary very special

circumstances leading to

overall compliance with PPG2

2. Designated Greenspace

policy

i. Limited harm to greenspace at

St Michaels Golf Course

ii. Limited harm to greenspace at

Widnes Warth

iii. Limited harm to the

miscellaneous areas through

the scheme, with some

compensatory provision.

3. Proposed Greenspace i. Minimal harm to proposed

greenspace at Wigg Island.

4. Action Area designation i. Technical conflict but limited

harm to South Widnes Action

Area.

ii. Minimal harm to Central

Widnes, Widnes Waterfront

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 115

and Castlefield and Norton

Priory.

5. Conflict with air quality

policy requirements

i. Limited specific negative

impacts identified but

improvement in overall air

quality demonstrated and thus

no harm when assessed

against the specific UDP policy

provisions.

6. Conflict with noise policy i. Overall reduction in noise

impact therefore general

compliance with policy.

Specific harm arises in respect

of Wigg Island but overall

effect is limited.

7. Conflict with landscape and

visual amenity

i. Some landscape and visual

impact arises.

ii. the principle aims of the

landscape designation policies

would not be materially

prejudiced.

8. Conflict with heritage

policies

i. Limited harm of no material

significance.

8.63 This limited identified conflict and associated assessment of harm in

respect of the Project is taken forward and informed the response to the

Secretary of State concerns conducted at Section 9 of my evidence.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 116

9. ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECRETARY OF

STATE ISSUES RAISED

9.1 The correspondence from GONW of 30th September 2008 sets out the

matters about which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government wishes to be informed for the purposes of her consideration

of the planning and listed building applications. In addition

correspondence of 20th February 2009 identifies those matters that the

Secretary of State for Transport wishes to be informed about for the

purposes of his consideration of the whole suite of application

submissions.

9.2 In this light therefore I address below each of the matters raised by the

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and on those

matters raised by the Secretary of State for Transport as far as they refer

to planning related matters. In doing so I draw upon both my evidence

and that presented by other professional witnesses appearing on behalf of

the applicant in support of the proposals.

Matters raised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government.

1. Whether the proposed development accords with the

development plan for the area (in this instance the RSS for

the North West and Halton UDP), having regard to the

provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004.

9.3 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act states that if regard is to be had to the

development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under

the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the

plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 117

9.4 As I set out at Section 5 of my evidence case law has accepted that it is

not unusual for development plan policies (in particular respect of larger

schemes) to pull in different directions, requiring a balance or judgement

to be taken as to the extent of compliance or breach. The accepted

approach is that a proposal has to be judged against the development plan

when considered as a whole; a proposal does not have to accord with each

and every policy to be considered as being in accordance.

9.5 On this basis therefore my evidence has had regard to the extent of

development plan support for the project, the extent of any conflict and an

understanding of the planning benefit which would arise out of the project

and which would be material to any assessment. The outcome of this

exercise is set out below:

9.6 The Project draws direct support from both elements of the development

plan:

1. RSS Policy RT10 cross refers to a range of policy criteria against

which transport priority and investment decisions will be adjudged.

It has been shown that the Mersey Gateway Project would be in

accord with the criteria set out. In addition it is evident that the

MGP is likely to be specifically identified as a priority within the

emerging RT10 Implementation Plan, which will confirm explicit RSS

support for the project.

2. UDP Policy S14 directly promotes a second crossing of the Mersey

east of SJB.

9.7 The Project as a whole conflicts with some of the more general elements

of the development plan. Whilst this is inevitable given the scale of the

project, an assessment of conflict and harm has been undertaken which

concludes as follows:

1) that in respect of Green Belt policy

a) there is harm by reason of inappropriateness

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 118

b) there is limited harm to the objectives of Green Belt

c) there is harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt

d) that very special circumstances exist having regard to policy

support, the extent of Green Belt impact and the balancing

effects of the ensuing benefits,

2) that in respect of designated greenspace there is primary conflict in

relation to the loss of land at St Michaels Golf Course. This is

however mitigated given the contaminated nature of the land, its

current closure to the general public and the ability to resume its

role as a golf course should the remediation take place. On this

basis the harm to the aims of the policy is considered to be limited.

Conflict with greenspace designations at Widnes Warth and at

miscellaneous locations along the route is considered to be limited.

3) That a conflict with the proposed designation of greenspace at Wigg

Island arises. The harm to the policy aspirations however is

minimal.

4) That a conflict with the appropriate local uses within the Southern

Widnes Action Area (RG1) arises. The Project would however

significantly advance a number of key Action Area policy aspirations

and the extent of the harm is considered to be limited. In respect

of the other Action Areas affected (RG2, RG3 and RG6) the harm is

minimal

5) That whilst the Project delivers regional improvements in air quality,

alongside some local area improvements, there are certain specific

areas that would suffer a minimal negative impact. An assessment

against the development plan policy framework however shows that

there is no material conflict arising.

6) That a conflict with noise policy requirements arise particularly in

respect of the effect at Wigg Island. The impact at Wigg island is

harmful but the overall effect on policy is limited.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 119

7) That a conflict with cultural heritage policy arises, limited however

to a change in the urban setting of a number of listed buildings and

three Conservation Areas. The extent of the harm is in my view

minimal.

9.8 The Project as a whole delivers significant transportation, regeneration

and social benefits. These will be of direct relevance to Halton and the

wider region.

9.9 Having undertaken the exercise it is my conclusion that the Project is in

accordance with the development plan when taken as a whole. An

assessment has been made of the policy conflicts arising, particularly in

respect of Green Belt policy given that the proposal is inappropriate

development for which very special circumstances must be demonstrated.

However, having balanced the benefits arising out of the Project against

the harm to Green Belt and the other policy conflict identified above, it is

my conclusion that the benefits do clearly outweigh the harm to Green

Belt and other harm and that they do constitute very special

circumstances.

9.10 On this basis my evidence concludes that there are no material

considerations of sufficient weight to determine other than in accordance

with the primary policies as set out within the development plan which

supports the provision of the Mersey Gateway Project.

2. Whether the applications accord with the provisions of PPS1

and whether it would accord with the Key Planning

Objectives set out in PPS1 Supplement: Planning and Climate

Change

9.11 PPS 1 is concerned with the delivery of sustainable development; it is wide

ranging in its scope and is relevant to a number of different elements of

the Mersey Gateway Project. Appraisal of the Project against the guidance

shows the following:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 120

1. The Project is supported by the development plan and the delivery of

the Project is embedded within regional and local planning policies.

The delivery of the Project would therefore be in accord with the plan

led system advocated within PPS1.

2. The Project has been subject to extensive and effective public

consultation at key stages in the development timetable. The

approach adopted has been in full accord with the principles of

consultation and community/stakeholder engagement as set out

within PPS1.

3. The Project will assist in the development of stronger more vibrant

communities within both Widnes and Runcorn, whilst increasing

accessibility for members of both communities to jobs, health,

housing, shops, leisure and community facilities.

4. The Project has sought to have full regard to the natural and historic

environment through both the route selection exercise and within the

Reference Design process.

5. The Project will contribute to delivering sustainable economic

development through the direct delivery of new employment

opportunities alongside supporting forward growth within the wider

regional economics.

6. The project will deliver direct and indirect regeneration opportunities

utilising brownfield and in sustainable urban locations.

7. The Reference Design demonstrates that the Project will deliver good

design, appropriate to its function and context and capable of

contributing to the identity of its location.

8. The Sustainable Transport Strategy which is in part facilitated by the

Project works (particularly in relation to SJB) will significantly

enhance the use of public transport within both Widnes and Runcorn.

In each respect therefore it is considered that the Project is in accord with

the key principles of PPS1.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 121

9.12 The Supplement to PPS1 considers how development through planning

regulations can contribute to the appropriate response to climate change.

Whilst it mainly addresses itself to the development of policy through

regional bodies and development plans, it is relevant the Project in that it

seeks the delivery of spatial strategies which seek to secure the fullest

possible use of sustainable transport for moving freight, public transport,

cycling and walking and which, overall, reduce the need to travel,

especially by car.

9.13 As is set out within the evidence of Mr Pauling, it is possible to conclude

that the project responds positively to these particular aims as follows:

1. The effects of the Project are essentially local; it does not induce

large numbers of additional trips across the wider study area and it does

not cause widespread trip reassignment.

2. At the year of opening in 2015, some 8000 trips choose to use a

different crossing point to SJB or the Mersey Gateway; 12000 trips

however chose not to cross the Mersey at all, either not making the trip or

choosing an alternative mode.

3. The modelling shows the following key findings:

That car trips are likely to be affected to a significantly greater extent than

either light or heavy goods vehicle trips.

Given the tolling regime and the effect of the ability to pay, car trips on

employers business show a positive response to the project.

The Project result in an increase in higher value employer business and

commute trips in the peak periods whilst discouraging lower value trips

from both the peak and non peak times. This allows for a more efficient

use of the highway network.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 122

Longer distance trips are removed from the SJB, leaving it free to

accommodate public transport, walking and cycling improvements

proposed as part of the Project.

The additional overall capacity provided by the Project delivers enhanced

network robustness and reliability.

On this basis it is my view that the Project is in accord with the provisions

of the Supplement so far as it is relevant.

3. The extent to which the development is consistent with

PPG2: Green Belts, especially whether the development is

considered appropriate under the provisions of PPG2.

9.14 My evidence summarises at Section 8 in respect of Green Belt policy,

concluding as follows:

1. That there is no practical alternative other than for a route alignment

which crosses the Green Belt at Wigg Island. The UDP in the text and

plan supporting policy S14 shows the two possible alignments, both of

which cross the Green Belt at Wigg Island.

2. That the impact on the Green belt caused by the Project is confined to:

a) harm by reason of inappropriateness

b) harm to two of the purposes of Green Belt (urban sprawl and

encroachment), although the material harm in both instances is

limited

c) harm to general attribute of openness, although the extent of the

material harm is again limited.

d) harm to be visual amenity of the Green Belt in this location, with

harm to some extent mitigated by siting, materials and

particularly design.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 123

9.15 PPG2 provides that a grant of permission for inappropriate development

may be made only when justified by very special circumstances which

clearly outweigh harm. The Guidance states that very special

circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless

the harm by reason of appropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly

outweighed by other considerations.

9.16 I have undertaken this appraisal and my conclusion is as follows:

1. The proposed represents an inappropriate form of Green Belt

development.

2. There is harm but that harm is limited, with the main concern being

in respect of impact on visual amenity.

3. There is a development plan presumption that the crossing of the

Mersey will be delivered within the Plan period (UDP policy S14) and an

acknowledgement within the development plan that the routing cannot

avoid crossing the Green Belt at Wigg island. The proposal has

development plan weight in accordance with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act

and this in itself is capable of representing the very special circumstances

necessary to justify inappropriate development.

4. In addition there are very significant economic regeneration,

transport, physical regeneration and social benefits which flow from the

Project which are material considerations and which add to the necessary

very special circumstances.

My conclusion therefore in response to the matter raised by the Secretary

of State is that whilst the Project works represent an inappropriate form of

development in the Green Belt, very special circumstances exist so as to

enable a grant of permission consistent with the provisions of PPG2.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 124

4. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent

with PPG17: Open Space particularly with regard to the loss

of greenspace.

9.17 PPG17 concerns itself with matters of open space sport and recreation

within development and their potential contribution to quality of life.

9.18 In considering the potential loss of open space, local authorities are urged

to weigh any benefits that are being offered to the local community

against the loss of space that will occur. The Project will result in the loss

of a quantum of open space and as such PPS17 requires an assessment of

harm against benefit. In term of harm the Project will result in:

- The temporary loss of 7.72 ha of land at St Michaels Golf Course to

allow for construction purposes;

- The permanent loss of 2.4 ha of land at the Golf Course

- Other incidental areas of loss through the Project

9.19 The Golf Course however has been closed to the public since 2004 due to

chronic ground contamination. There is no immediate prospect of it being

reinstated and therefore whilst it currently provides a ‘visual’ open space

benefit it cannot be used and it is of no practical open space benefit to the

community.

9.20 The temporary loss will be reinstated post construction and no long term

harm arises; the permanent loss of land (2.4 ha) is significant in itself but

would not prejudice the ability of the land to support a replacement,

reconfigured 18 hole facility at some future date.

9.21 The use of the Golf Course land is critical to the Project and its effective

alignment and construction. I consider therefore that it is possible to

conclude that significant community benefit will flow out of the Project

against minimal material harm arising from the acknowledged loss of open

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 125

space. On this basis I am of the view that no material conflict arises with

the provisions of PPG17.

9.22 The other harm to open space is minor elements of permanent land taken

at Widnes Worth (0.14 ha) and at three other locations within construction

areas C, F and G of each c. 0.1 ha). One of these areas is the subject of a

replacement provision which will be confirmed under the application for a

certificate made under Section 19 (i)(a) of the acquisition of Land Act

1981. The exchange land is no less in area and is equally advantageous

to users of the land that is being lost. This will ensure that in this

particular location no detriment arises. My view on the other areas of

incidental loss is that the harm to wider open space objectives are minimal

and are outweighed by the benefits arising out of the Project. It is my

view that no material conflict arises with the provisions of PPG17.

5. Whether the applications have fully taken into account the

requirements of PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation especially given the nature and extent of land

identified and protected under local designations, and

whether the applications accord with PPS10: Waste.

9.23 PPS9 at para. 1(vi) confirms that planning decisions should prevent harm

to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where necessary,

adequate mitigation measures should be put in place.

9.24 PPS9 recognises the most important sites for biodiversity as those

identified through international conventions and European Directives;

these include SPAs and SACs. SSSIs not covered by international

designations should nonetheless be given a high degree of protection.

9.25 A full review of potential impacts of the Project on important nature

conservation designations within the Mersey Estuary has been undertaken

to accompany the planning application. This is taken forward through the

evidence of Mr Oldfield and Mr Gemmell, which assesses the importance of

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 126

the receptor and the magnitude of any effect, through which a judgement

is made on the significance of the impact.

9.26 In accordance with PPS9, key sites assessed through the process comprise

the following within the internationally and nationally important Middle

Mersey Estuary:

a. SPAb. European Marine Sitec. Ramsar sited. SSSI

9.27 The construction of the New Bridge will be situated upstream and entirely

outside the main designations, namely the Mersey Estuary SPA. This

reflects a key principle of PPS9 to minimise impacts upon important

biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Notwithstanding this,

given the relative proximity of the New Bridge, the assessment has had

regard to the provisions of this guidance.

9.28 The evidence of Mr Oldfield HBC/14/1P and Mr Gemmell HBC/15/1P

assesses the impact of the Project on the SPA and the wider Mersey

Estuary. This concludes of no harm to SPA habitats. Further, no material

impact on the habitats of important bird populations within the Mersey

Estuary SPA is identified. The New Bridge will have no effect on the

integrity of the SPA in terms of bird habitats and vegetation.

9.29 The assessment concludes that the Project will generate only minor

impacts on biodiversity within the wider Upper Mersey Estuary during

construction. To minimise these effects, mitigation measures are

proposed.

9.30 It is my conclusion therefore that the Project has had full regard to the

requirements of PPS9, and will have no significant material impact upon

the integrity of the Mersey Estuary.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 127

9.31 PPS10 establishes the broad principles for the management of waste at all

levels, including construction waste arisings.

9.32 In common with all major development projects, the Project has the

potential to generate significant quantities of waste material, which will

require appropriate handling, storage, treatment, transportation and

disposal.

9.33 A review of potential sources of waste arisings has been assessed as part

of the planning application process. This has been taken forward within

the evidence of Mr Michael Jones, who confirms potential sources of waste

arisings during the construction phase to comprise:

a. Construction works;b. Drainage;c. Demolition;d. General site activities;e. Pavement construction;f. Construction phase maintenance;g. Earthworks.

9.34 Waste management measures to be employed as part of mitigation from

waste management activities will form part of the Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This is a requirement of the

planning conditions attached to the approved planning permissions. As

part of the CEMP, the Concessionaire will prepare a Site Waste

Management Plan, submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval

prior to the commencement of development.

9.35 The proposed regime of waste management will contribute to the

sustainability of the Project to ensure the safe removal and transportation

of waste materials, and to minimise any environmental impacts which may

arise as a result subject to mitigation. It is my view therefore that the

Project is in accordance with the principles of PPS10.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 128

6. Whether the applications accord with PPG13: Transport in

particular whether they promote sustainable transport

choices and reduce the need to travel by private transport.

9.36 The transport related benefits of the Project are set out primarily within

the evidence of Mr Pauling and are summarised within my evidence. With

regards to the two particular matters raised by the Secretary of State my

conclusions are set out below:

9.37 The proposals directly promote sustainable transport choices and reduce

the need or requirement to travel by private transport for the following

reasons:

9.38 The Project works will on the day of opening remove approximately 80%

of the traffic which currently uses SJB, allowing for the bridge to serve an

essentially local function.

9.39 Of the traffic that is removed, a proportion will choose not to travel,

primarily due to the impact of the tolling regime. This will have a direct

benefit on the overall quality of private transport trips.

9.40 The reduction in traffic on SJB will allow for a reconfiguration of the bridge

decking (as set out in the listed building application submissions) reducing

vehicle space to a single lane in each direction and thus allowing space for

the provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycling facilities. This will

directly promote more sustainable travel options.

9.41 The capacity will ensure that journey times for all transport modes, but

particularly so far public transport between Widnes and Runcorn across

the SJB are much more reliable, promoting increased customer confidence

and use.

9.42 The delivery of the provisions of the Sustainable Transport Strategy as

approved by Halton Council relies on a reliable and robust local link across

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 129

the river between Widnes and Runcorn. The reconfiguration of the SJB as

proposed within the Project works will provide that degree of reliability.

9.43 The Project works will, through a financial contribution, contribute directly

to the delivery of the Sustainable Transport Strategy.

9.44 It is my firm conclusion therefore that the proposal, primarily through the

improvements to SJB and the delivery of the Sustainable Transport

Strategy, will promote sustainable transport choices for the residents of

Widnes and Runcorn..

7. Whether the applications will have a significant impact on

features of archaeological and heritage importance, listed

buildings and conservation areas in relation to the provisions

of PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG16:

Archaeology and Planning.

9.45 PPG15 at paragraph 1.1 confirms that it is fundamental to the

Governments policies for environmental stewardship that there should be

effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment.

9.46 A full review of the cultural heritage designations has been undertaken to

accompany the planning application process. This has been carried

forward within the evidence of Mr Beswick, who confirms that the study

area defined as part of the EA exercise comprises the following cultural

heritage resources.

1 scheduled ancient monument (Halton Castle)

47 listed buildings

4 designated Conservation Areas

125 sites of heritage interest

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 130

9.47 In respect of the provision of PPG15 therefore it is possible to conclude

that the project works raise no matter of material significance

9.48 PPG16 sets out guidance for the preservation of archaeological remains;

the preferred approach for the preservation of important remains is to

ensure that remain in situ. Special regard is had to nationally important

archaeological remains, with a presumption in favour of retention.

9.49 A full review of the potential archaeological impacts of the Project has

been undertaken to determine potential impacts of the proposed

development upon existing archaeological and historic sites, buildings and

areas. The key findings were as follows:

a. Possible loss of ground remains related to the history and development of historic sites;

b. Potential for buried features to be uncovered during construction;c. Impact upon external views and visual setting of receptors along the

proposed route alignment.

9.50 Mitigation measures to minimise impact on archaeological remains have

been identified as part of the assessment, and are considered to represent

the appropriate response given the low potential for the construction

groundworks to uncover archaeological remains.

9.51 The long-term residual effects of the Project, assuming that all the

recommended mitigation measures are applied and that the Project

advances in accordance with historic environment and archaeological

policies, are considered to be low negative to neutral. It is my conclusion

therefore that the Project is in accordance with the provisions of PPS9.

8. Whether the applications have fully taken into consideration

the requirements of PPS23: Pollution and PPS24 Noise within

particular regard to the reduction in air quality and the

impact of noise and vibration.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 131

9.52 A full assessment of both noise and air quality was undertaken within the

Environmental Assessment exercise which supported the planning

application process. The findings have been taken forward and developed

in the evidence of Ms Brown in respect of air quality and Mr Freeborn

HBC/12/1P in respect of noise. I set out the key findings of both below:

1. Air Quality

9.53 The effects of the proposal in terms of air quality were assessed as part of

the Environmental Assessment process which supported the planning

submissions; this has been carried forward and updated in the evidence of

Ms Brown.

9.54 The evidence assesses the effect of the Project on air quality as follows:

1. It appraises the potential impact of the construction process, having

regard to the effects of the mitigation measures and conditional

procedures.

2. It appraises the operation of the Project on local air quality values.

3. It reviews how the operator of the Project works would affect

regional air quality.

2. Noise

9.55 The evidence of Mr Freeborn summarises matters in relation to both

construction and operational stages. In respect of the construction period,

it is found that there would be some localised negative effects within six of

the nine construction areas. The majority of the impacts are considered to

be moderate or low, with the exception of the potential piling works at

Wigg Island, which is considered to be high negative impact due to the

sensitive nature of the area.

9.56 The construction period is however finite and the work regimes will be

regulated by the conditional arrangements.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 132

9.57 The evidence goes on to conclude in respect of the operation of the Project

works, both at the year of opening at 2015 and at the design year of

2030. With particular regard to the assessment against PPG17, the

evidence finds that:

a) Without the Project works (i.e. a do nothing situation) 100% of the

dwellings in the study area will experience an increase in noise due to

national growth in traffic flows with the Project works, only 65% will

experience an increase whilst 35% will experience a reduction.

b) The sample of 12 survey points along the route shows that at the

year of opening, 5 experience major reductions in noise and 4 experience

negligible benefit or no change. Only 3 points experience an increase in

noise, of which only 1 is described as major (i.e. within the bounds of

perception). The findings are broadly the same for 2030, with 5 sample

points showing major benefit, 3 showing negligible or no change, and 4

showing an increase again only one of which is considered as major.

c) The evidence confirm that the mitigation effects of the proposed

noise barriers will serve to reduce the impact of road noise.

9.58 On this basis it is my conclusion that the Project works will when taken as

a whole represent a net benefit in terms of noise quality. The proposals

are thus in accord with the provisions of PPG17.

9. The detail of any conditions which should be attached to any

permission or consent.

9.59 A schedule of conditions has been agreed with the Planning authority and

is before Inquiry for consideration. The working of the conditions has

been with the Local planning Authority and has had full regard to Circular

guidance as appropriate.

Matters raised by the Secretary of State for Transport

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 133

9.60 The matters raised by the Secretary of State for Transport are much more

wide ranging and cover a number of disciplines. Some of the matters

raised however are related specifically to matters of planning and planning

policy. Whilst there is some overlap with and duplication of the matters

raised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I

set out the full response below for ease of reference.

2. The justification for the Councils proposals, including the

extent to which they are consistent with national, regional

and local planning policies.

9.61 My evidence has shown that there is an overwhelming consistency with

planning policy as is summarised below:

9.62 There is direct support at Policy S14 of the Halton Unitary Development

Plan for both the principle of the Projects works (a second crossing east of

the existing SJB) and the proposed alignment off Central Expressway.

9.63 There is support within the Regional Spatial Strategy for the Project.

9.64 There is other, non development plan support for the Project (Regional

Economic Strategy and others)

9.65 The Project is in broad accord with the suite of national policy statements,

in particular PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and the PSS1

supplement, PPS2: Green belts, PPG9: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation, PPS10: Waste; PPG13: Transport, PPG15: Planning and the

historic Environment, PPG16: Archaeology and Planning, PPG17: Open

Space, PPS23: Pollution and PPG24: Noise.

9.66 My conclusion therefore is that the proposal is consistent with planning,

transport and environmental policies.

3(g) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent

with PPG2: Green Belts

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 134

9.67 This matter was raised by the Secretary of State for Communities and

Local Government and I have responded at paragraph 9.60 above. In

summary however the position is summarised as follows:

1. The development is inappropriate when considered against the

provisions of PPG2.

2. Harm is acknowledged to arise by virtue of this inappropriateness

but also having regard to the Green Belt purposes of encroachment,

merging the overall concern with openness and visual amenity. In

each instance however the degree of harm is limited.

3. There are other material considerations which are sufficient to

overcome both the presumption against inappropriate development

and the harm that arises. These comprise:

a) the development plan support for a crossing of the Mersey in

this location and an assumption that it will be brought

forward within the UDP timeframe.

b) the range of transport, environmental, social and

regeneration benefits that flow from the Project works which

are set out in detail with my evidence and that of others.

9.68 These matters comprise the very special circumstances sufficient to

overcome Green Belt concerns and thus allow for a grant of permission in

accordance with the provisions of PPG2.

The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with

Government policies in PPG17: Open Space

9.69 PPG17 defines open space as meaning all open space of public value;

including not just land but also other features (rivers, canals etc) which

offer opportunities for sport and recreation as well as acting as a visual

amenity.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 135

9.70 The UDP via its Greenspace designation (policies GE6 and GE7) seeks to

identify the majority of functional open space with Widnes and Runcorn.

The policy approach seeks to resist development in such areas unless one

or more of four criteria are met. The supporting text at policy GE6

(paragraph 10) state that the policy is not intended to act as a block on all

development but rather to provide a framework for assessment.

9.71 The effect upon Greenspace by the Project works has been assessed at

various stages within the application process and shows one significant

area of permanent loss (at St Michaels Golf Course), a number of

examples of minor residential less through the scheme (road verges, open

land etc) and a loss within Widnes Warth and Astmoor Saltmarsh Wigg

Island caused by the siting of the New bridge support piers. In assessing

this loss of such space my conclusions are as follows:

1) That in respect of St Michaels Golf Course the effect is significant but is

mitigated by the fact that:

a) the Golf Course is closed to the public due to contamination

concerns and there is no funding programme for its restoration.

b) the works do not prejudice the ability of the Golf Course to be

reinstated to a 18 hole facility if remediation was to come

forward.

c) the effect does not materially diminish the overall visual amenity

function fulfilled by the Greenspace designation.

d) the works on the land would enable a key element of the Project

works to be brought forward (tolling plaza).

As such, it is considered that the effect on this land would meet two of

the exception criteria set out within policy GE6, namely:

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 136

a) the works would not cause local residents to travel to a less

convenient location (GE6c).

b) there are clear and convincing reasons why development should

be permitted (GE6d).

The effect upon the land is therefore considered to be acceptable when

assessed against the principles of the policy.

2) The incidental loss of such land through the scheme is minor in nature

and does not materially prejudice any amenity considerations. This is

justified by the same GE6 criteria as set out above, namely that no

material impact on residential benefit will arise and there are clear and

compelling reasons why the loss should be justified.

3) The loss of Greenspace within Widnes Warth and Astmoor

Saltmarsh/Wigg island is limited to the land taken up by the New

Bridge piers. The loss of land is limited to the ground area taken up by

the individual piers and the potential impact is mitigated in that:

a) the visual impact of the development at a very local land can be

limited by appropriate structural planting.

b) the overall function and integrity of the Greenspace will not be

prejudiced, and its ongoing amenity function will not be materially

prejudiced.

9.72 The effect upon the land therefore again considered to be justified by the

exception criteria set out within Policy GE6 and as such its development

would not be contrary to the provisions of either PPG17 or the development

plan.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 137

10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

10.1 My evidence has undertaken an appraisal of the Project works against the

planning policy framework. I have considered the extent to which the

proposals are supported by national, regional and local planning policy, I

have examined the extent of any conflict and have identified benefits that

arise out of the Project works. This in turn enables me to conclude on

planning balance, planning suitability and the appropriateness of a grant

of planning permission. By way of summary therefore I conclude on each

element below.

Planning Policy Support

10.2 The Project works are directly supported by the development plan (which

in this instance comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) and the

Halton UDP (2005)) as follows:

a) The Project works are in full accord with and strongly supported by

the range of policy criteria set out at RSS policy RT10 against which

transport proposals are to be judged.

b) The Project works deliver a second crossing of the River Mersey in full

accord with the requirements of UDP policy S14 (namely a second

crossing, east of the existing SJB and forming part of an integrated

transport system for Halton and the wider network). The position

and alignment of the New Bridge reflects that shown on UDP Map 2.

10.3 On this basis it is concluded that the Project, in its proposed form and

location, is expressly supported by the development plan. As such, in

accordance with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, a presumption in favour of

a determination in accordance with the plan arises unless other material

considerations indicate otherwise.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 138

10.4 In addition, the proposals are supported by other non-development plan

policy, in particular the Regional Economic Strategy

(2006) which recognises the benefits of the Project, and Haltons Local

Transport Plan which identifies the significant transport benefits which will

arise from the Project.

10.5 The effects of the Project works have also been shown to be largely in

accord with the regulatory provisions of the development plan. The

evidence in respect of surface water; ground contamination;

hydrodynamics; navigation; terrestrial, avian and acquatic ecology; and

transportation has shown that no material policy conflict arises.

Planning Policy Harm

10.6 Inevitably, given the scale of the Project, there are elements of the works

which raise potential conflicts with individual parts of the development

plan, in particular the detailed provisions of the UDP. The courts have

concluded that this is not unusual and that an informed balance has to be

made allowing for a proposal to be judged against the development plan

as a whole.

10.7 This approach therefore requires an understanding of the extent of any

conflict. My evidence has undertaken this exercise, identifying where

conflict may exist and making a judgement as to the harm arising. My

conclusions on this are that:

a) There is some harm to green belt policy, arising out of limited harm

to Green Belt purposes, openness and visual amenity. There are

however a range of other significant considerations (including

development plan compliance and the range of economic, social and

transportation benefits) which clearly outweigh the harm arising,

and which are capable of constituting the necessary very special

circumstance to justify inappropriate development.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 139

b) There is some limited loss of land existing and potential Greenspace

as designated within the UDP; the largest loss is at the currently

disused St Michael’s Golf Course, although this is not material given

that the loss would not prejudice the potential future use of the land

as golf course. The other Greenspace loss is minor and does not

materially prejudice the aims and objectives of the UDP policy.

c) There is limited technical conflict with the various Action Area

designations; the policy does not be identify transport infrastructure

as an appropriate use (thus giving rise to the potential policy

conflict) but in reality the extent of land take is limited, no material

prejudice is caused to the policy objectives and the Project works

will actively deliver some of the policy aspirations. As such the

potential development plan conflict is minimal.

d) Part of the Project works cause a limited and localised negative

effect on air quality, which could in turn be considered to represent

a policy concern. In reality however the evidence shows that when

assessed overall the Project delivers a net improvement in both local

and regional air quality and that potential localised impact does not

generate any material concern when considered against the

development plan policy tests.

e) Part of the Project works cause a limited and localised negative

effect on the noise climate, which could in turn be considered to

represent a policy concern. However the evidence has shown that

overall there will be a reduction in annoyance due to road traffic

noise with the project in place. The Project delivers major

reductions in noise levels across wide areas. The areas which will

experience an increase in noise levels are limited, with only the

commercial area adjacent to Wigg Island experiencing an uplift

which is considered to be major.

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 140

10.8 On the basis of this review and analysis I conclude that the extent of

conflict with the development plan is limited.

Planning Benefits

10.9 As part of the planning balance exercise I have undertaken a review of the

benefits that may arise out of the proposals. This exercise concludes that

there are a wide range of benefits which flow out of an are a direct

function of the Project works; these fall into four broad areas, namely:

a) Transportation-related benefits, including the primary benefits of

addressing the congestion constraint presented by SJB, achieving

network resilience and the development of a more sustainable and

integrated transport network for Halton;

b) Economic and Physical Regeneration related benefits, including the

direct and indirect employment benefits, the benefits to local and

wider regional economic performance, and the physical regeneration

benefits delivered by the opportunity for infrastructure demolition;

c) Social related benefits, including the benefits to the local economy,

the direct benefit to the more disadvantaged wards within the

Borough and the general benefits of better integration between the

towns of Widnes and Runcorn and

d) The achievement of the project objectives set by Halton Council for

the project works.

Each of these is a significant material consideration in any consideration of

the Project works.

10.10 My assessment of the Project in terms of policy compliance, conflict and

planning benefit informs an assessment of planning balance and a

planning judgement. An appraisal has been made in respect of the

potential policy conflicts arising, particularly in respect of Green Belt policy

Proof of Evidence

January 2009 141

given that the proposals constitutes inappropriate development for which

very special circumstances must be demonstrated. However, having

identified significant other material considerations, included amongst

which is development plan support and the range of planning benefits, it is

my conclusion that these do clearly outweigh harm and they do constitute

the necessary very special circumstances.

10.11 On this basis my conclusion is that the Project is in accordance with the

development plan when taken as a whole and that there are no material

considerations of sufficient weight to determine the proposals other than

in accordance with the primary policies of the development plan which

supports the delivery of the Mersey Gateway Project.